Response to case study scenario 1

Legally a person in this situation is under no obligation to take this matter any further. The correct superior as been notified, thus the chain of command has been adhered to and it is now their responsibility to act upon this issue. ‘The General Product Safety Regulations 2005’ does not include legislation that could lead to prosecution given the circumstances. It states that that the producer and distributor is to be held responsible for unsafe products entering the UK and European markets.

Depending on the potential sale figures for this particular model, the 1.5% with a possible fire hazard resulting fault could translate to a very large amount. Not only might this be dangerous for the public but if so could damage the company’s reputation. These consequences in turn may result in any number of outcomes including financial loss or the cutback of staff. In light of the potential aftermath from the supervisor’s inadequate decision there is a duty to protect the customers and company. The question then becomes how to take this matter further?

Questioning the superior about the decision could be seen as a personal attack. Additionally in the past I was participating in an R&D project where strong differences of opinion arose. Colleagues not part of the project were involved, and because some of them were close friends of a manager, the problems escalated. Therefore the first logical step is to inform another manager within the company of the decision that has been made; not general employees. Either a manager further up the hierarchy or another supervisor who is involved with the USB flash memory drives. This way one can determine whether the supervisor made an irresponsibly judgement call, or the company as a whole is breaking laws by not considering public safety.

If it becomes clear that the company is not upholding ethical business practices it is then necessary to report this to the authorities. This correct procedure can be carried out with the assistance of either ‘The Royal Academy of Engineering’ or the ‘Public Concern at Work’ authority. It is very possible that the company will discover ones identity due to the involvement with the product. However the ‘Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998’ provides legislation protecting whistleblowers from suffering detriment due to disclosing information. In this situation it is important to remain professional at all times and keep hard copies of communications between oneself and the managers.

If the supervisor is simply a bad apple then the product could be quickly recalled from the client. Possibly avoiding any bad publicity, especially if the USB flash memory drives have not yet gone on sale. Unlike Dell in 2006 which had to recall 4.1 million batteries which had the potential to explode or burst into flames. Dell had only received reports of six incidents however this still led to a recall; a much lower incident ratio then this product. If the problem is ignored then it could be forced by the authorities to recall the faulty drives. A forced recall occurred in October 2008 where the ‘Consumer Safety Commission’ made Sony recall 35,000 notebook battery packs. Not only was this a financial loss but it tarnished the Sony brand and led to lawsuits due to damages. Therefore it is essential that any production is halted, bad batches are recalled and further testing is performed.