Title : The Issue of Confidentiality and Whistleblowing on line with Workplace Relations

Synopsis/Executive Summary

This case study tries to emphasize the issue on confidentiality and whistleblowing,
especially if good workplace relations are on the line. It focuses on how confidentiality in the
workplace must be maintained, and how and when whistleblowing should be given the
consideration.

The case study is about a software engineer working harmoniously with his colleagues
in a good company, who eventually finds himself facing the responsibility of making the right
decision, and is stated as follows:

A software engineer discovers that a colleague, an Electronics Engineer (ECE), has

been downloading restricted files that contain trade secrets about a new product that the
colleague is not personally involved with. He knows the colleague has been having financial
problems, and he fears the colleague is planning to sell the secrets or perhaps leave the
company and use them in starting up his own company. Company policy requires him to inform
his supervisor, but the colleague is a close friend. Should he first talk with the friend about what
he is doing, or should he immediately inform his supervisor?

Findings

In the given case, the software engineer finds himself in a situation wherein he needs to
decide what he should do in terms of what he knows is right considering the promulgated rules
of the company and his duty to fulfill it, or to do the subjective option considering the financial
problems of his friend and colleague. The software engineer must choose the heavier grounds
on which he should act on. A number of problems can be found in the short and simple case,
and one of those is the problem of breaching confidentiality. Another is that of the issue of
whistleblowing, which would probably give the heavier weight on the engineer since he would
have to consider if he would be willing to sacrifice the good work relations—and friendship—with
that colleague for what the company rules asks him to do.

1
 The first problem, as stated above, is the breaching of confidentiality. Perhaps it is better
to define confidentiality first as used in work ethics. Confidentiality is defined as an ethical
principle of discretion associated with the professions. The duty of confidentiality of every
working professional is to keep secret all information deemed desirable to be kept as a secret.
Basically, any information that the employer would like to be kept secret is for the purpose of
effectively competing against potential company rivals.

In the concept of confidentiality, some related terms should be distinguished first in order
to further understand the case and the underlying concepts. First is the privileged information,
are information that literally means “available only on the basis of special privilege” (Martin,
et.al, 2005) such as the privilege accorded an employee working on a special assignment.
Second term is what we call, Propriety information or trade secret, which is a term carefully
defined by property law. It is that which can be virtually any information that has not yet become
public, which an employer has taken steps for it to be kept secret, and which is thereby given
limited legal protection in common law that forbids employees from divulging it.

The colleague in the case study obviously tried to gather confidential data, as he “…has
been downloading restricted files that contain trade secrets about a new product that the
colleague is not personally involved with.” As it was stated, he was not personally involved with
the data he was meddling with, thus, referring to the concepts previously stated, he was not
“privileged” to access the said information/data, which was, in fact, a propriety information or
trade secret. Because of the nature of the information/data he was trying to access, it is
imperative that, if caught and proven guilty, he would be facing legal consequences.

Here comes the role of the software engineer, who, by duty, should do something about
the problem. Since he saw the trespass done by his friend/colleague, he must decide to act on
it. Here lies the second issue, which is the act of whistleblowing. Whistleblowing, according to
(Martin, et.al, 2005), occurs when an employee or former employee conveys information about
a significant problem to someone in a position to take action on the problem. As the company
requires him to do, the software engineer must tell his supervisor or immediate superior about
his colleague.

2
 In the concept of whistleblowing, there is what Martin, et.al, 2005 call open
whistleblowing and anonymous whistleblowing. In former, the individuals openly reveal
themselves as they convey the information, while the latter involves concealing one’s identity.

In the case of the software engineer, he should decide whether he would keep the
discovery for himself in order to preserve his good working relations with that person, or whether
he should proceed with the whistleblowing. Considering the latter, would it be ethical to do so,
considering that he knows about the financial problems of his colleague?

Having been able to state the underlying issues in the case study, the proponents found
that the major problem lies on the fact that the software engineer simply needs to decide or
choose between doing his duty and responsibility to the company and keeping his friendship
and good work relations with this colleague.

Discussion

The major issues, as discussed in the previous section, include the breach of
confidentiality, and Whistleblowing. However, it was found that the main problem is choosing
between duty and good work relations with his colleague. Considering this, the proponents
suggest the following solutions:

1. The software engineer should tell his colleague/friend that what he is doing is
against the company policies and code of ethics and he may be imprisoned if proven
guilty.

This solution would allow for a healthy interaction between the software engineer and his
friend. The latter would be reminded that what he’s doing is wrong, and the former could at least
say to himself that he’s done an effort to actually help his friend through talking him out of doing
the act again.

2. The software engineer may consider the option of waiting, or giving his colleague
ample time to think things through.

3
 After doing the first solution, this second one would give his colleague enough time to
realize the legal implications of his actions—considering that he would actually listen to his
friend.
When no good result arises from either of the solutions, then an alternative solution must
be considered. For the proponents, the only alternative solution for this problem is:

• Proceed with the Whistleblowing.

The software engineer would then have to tell the immediate superior about the acts of
his colleague. This would surely have damaging effects on his relations with his colleague, but
at least he had already exhausted the possible means of helping his friend by telling him to stop
whatever he was doing.

Telling the immediate superior would disclose the information about his colleague’s
actions, and he would be able to fulfill his duties and responsibilities to the company. In addition,
the company he’s working for would be saved since the disclosure of the confidential files would
have been stopped. Unfortunately, this might cause the termination of the colleague.

Table1 below summarizes the suggested solutions and alternative solution for the case
study, identifying the good and bad consequences should they be followed, the rules that might
nullify the suggestions, the expected outcomes, and the potential benefit or harm.

Do any Potential
Good Bad Expected
rules Benefit >
Alternative Consequences Consequences Outcome
nullify? harm
SOLUTIONS
Best:
1. The Colleague will
software Colleague listen and
Collegial
engineer No policy might not take stop doing
relationship
should tell his violated his advice, such things
colleague/friend instead he
Company
that what he is Colleague may would tell him No Worst:
right
doing is against listen to to just be quiet. Colleague will
protected
the company software not listen and
policies and engineer’s continue do
code of ethics advice. his bad plans. Relationship
and he may be to the boss

4
imprisoned if
proven guilty.
Best:
Colleague will
come up with
2. The good
software realization
No policy Collegial
engineer may Software and will not
violation. relationship
consider the engineer continue his
option of doesn’t know bad plans for
They are still No
waiting, or how long his the company. Company
friends and on right
giving his friend will
good working protected
colleague realize his Worst:
relations.
ample time to doings. Colleague will
think things still do his Relationship
through. plans and to the boss
your waiting
is just wasted.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION
Best: The
company will
be saved and
may be able
to find
solution
before the
problem will
get even
worst Collegial
3. Proceed with relationship
The immediate Worst:
the Colleague will
superior or the Colleague Company
be terminated No
Whistleblowing. boss will be friend will be right
from his job.
informed. blacklisted protected
from the
company and Relationship
he might not to the boss
find any job at
all. Your
friendship will
also be
compromised.

Table1: Summary of Suggested Solutions and Alternative Solution

5
 In addition, the offender has violated the Code of Ethics for Electronics Engineering
Practitioners. According to the Manual of Professional Practice for ECEs,

“He shall act in professional matters as a faithful or trustee, and treat as confidential all
matters and information concerning the business affairs, technical processes, etc., of his clients
and/or employers.”

Thus, by spilling out confidential files from the company, he has violated one of the
Codes in Relation with Clients, Employer, and Labor. This would then serve as a ground for
punishment under Article VI – Penal Provisions and Assistance of Law Enforcement Agencies
of R.A.9292 Section 35, Provision (i), which states that:

“Any person who shall violate any provision of this Act or any rules, regulations, the
Code of Ethics and the Code of Technical Standards of Practice promulgated under this Act.”

The violation then, if proven, would result to the engineer being punished by a fine of not
more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) nor more than One million pesos
(P1,000,000), or imprisonment of not less than six (6) months nor more than six (6) years, or
both.

Conclusion

With the issues discussed and suggested solutions and alternative solution have been
presented, proponents conclude the importance of weighing the consequences of one’s actions
especially in terms of healthy work relations with colleagues, following company policies
especially on the issue confidentiality, and especially on the legal implications of every action a
working professional might do.

6
Recommendations

The proponents have been able to come up with two solutions for the case study, and
one alternative solution. Thus, the proponents recommend that those suggested solutions and
alternative solution, as discussed thoroughly in the previous sections, be implemented.

Implementation

The software engineer should immediately be able to digest the situation, and think
carefully of his actions. Following the recommended solutions and alternative solution, he will
not going to do rash judgments on the matter since the solutions offer an open-minded and
thoughtful way of resolving the case since the proponents considered, in all aspects, the
importance of trying to always maintain a good relationship with one’s colleagues. However, in
the end, when all possible means of saving the person from being reprimanded, the duty of a
professional in terms of correct work ethics must be followed.

7
 References

MORDECHAI MIRONI, “The Confidentiality of Personnel Records”, Labor Law Journal25 (May
1974)

Marvin T. Brown, Working Ethics: Strategies for Decision Making and Organizational
Responsibility (San Franciso: Jossey-Bass, 1990). Joseph P. Folgen, Marshall Scott Poole, and
Randall K. Stutman, Working through Conflict 2nd ed. (New York: Harper Collins, 1993)

Stephen H. Unger, Controlling Technology: Ethics and the Responsible Engineer, 2nd ed. (New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1992)

Gene G. James, “Whistle Blowing: Its Moral Justification”, in Business Ethics; 4th ed. Michael
Hoffman, Robert E. Frederick, and Mark S. Schwarz (Boston: McGraw Hill, 2001)

Kenneth Wallers, “Your Employee’s Right to Blow the Whistle” Howard Business’ Review 53
(July 1975); David W. Ewing, Freedom Inside the Organization (New York: McGraw Hill, 1977)

Mike W. Martin, “Whistle Blowing”, Chapter 9 of Meaningful Work: Rethinking Professional

Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000)