99205
I do not know how you can defend yourself against outright lies. In many jurisdictions, you cannot even record your conversations unless both parties agree. In the cited case cited in the article, there were enough facts left out to protect the innocent and the guilty. I believe you can protect yourself with a "mutually agreed" recording, but that may strain relations with your client. I have always required the client to give me a letter giving me the authority to act on his behalf, and detail the limits of that authority. That acts as somewhat of a "Power of Attorney (Limited)". (By the Way: With that letter, I can issue a true "Certification" as a person acting for the head of the company, if the welders pass the qualification examinations.)
I personally usually always look at the complaints with a jaundiced eye. For my part on the Subcommittee, I look for reasonable evidence to show that there is a real "Smoking gun" before I vote to ask for a hearing panel. I also look to see that there is a violation of some article of the Code of Ethics, and not just "dissatisfaction" on the part of the complainant. In my mind, I play the devils advocate on both sides of the argument as it is presented in the complaint. All the members of the Subcommittee try to feel out to be sure there is not just some Union / Non-Union politics driving the complaint. All the members of the Subcommittee take the job seriously. We are somewhat like a "Grand Jury". After the Subcommittee votes, it's role is finished! The vote on the Subcommittee Ballot is not always unanimous!
When when the case is recommended for Hearing Panel action, the AWS Attorney gets involved and a series of other steps take place. There is either some sort of "Consent Agreement" (like a "plea bargain") or the complaint is withdrawn. If there is no "Consent Agreement", the AWS President appoints a "Hearing Panel" and the case is presented by the "Complainant" to that hearing panel, which evaluates the case, (with guidance from the AWS Attorney), deliberates, and issues a ruling.
The "Complainant" actually becomes the "Presenter" (like a "Prosecutor") in the hearing. The "Presenter's" (Complainant) credibility and knowledge are also evaluated by the Hearing Panel. The burden of proof lies with the "Presenter" (Complainant), but the hearing panel members decide what is "proved" and "not proved." There may also be an attorney for the complainant and the CWI involved, who also get to speak during the hearing.
Even when the Hearing Panel has issued it's findings, and issued a ruling, there is an appeal step available. In one case (More than 25 years ago,) A CAWI altered his certificate and stamp to make himself a CWI, worked on a government contract for a year and signed the job off as a CWI. After the job was done, he passed the CWI exam at the CWI level and became a "real" CWI. Then, two years later, the government auditors caught up with his fraudulent CWI status, and the complaint was filed. There was no real question about the facts, and the guilt. The Hearing panel voted the revoke the CWI status, and ban him from taking the exam and becoming a CWI again for ten years. That man then "appealed" on the basis that he needed the CWI certification to earn a living and support this wife and four children. The AWS Board of directors agreed, and he was allowed to sit for the CWI exam sooner, passed the exam and become re-certified in less than two years.
In the case cited in the recent Inspection Trends Article, the "Complainant" seemed to be quite sure that he asked for a "National Registry" certification, and the CWI ignored him and gave his welders qualification exams to D 1.1. The CWI did not tell the complainant that he was not an "Accredited Test Facility", and therefore could not give the monitored qualification testing required to get the welders listed on the National Registry. The fact that the "Complainant" knew what the National Registry was, added credibility to his complaint allegation. That CWI may be able to refute that claim or at least raise doubt. For our part as the Subcommittee, we are not "Judge Jury and Executioner". I will not say what the subcommittee decision was in that real case, nor elaborate on what happened since.
The members of the Subcommittee just read the complaint, decide whether there are credible listed violations of an Article of the Code of Ethics, evaluate the supporting evidence and recommend that nothing be done, or that the AWS President form a Hearing Panel. Many times we vote "NO", because the complaint is defective for one or more reasons, or because the allegation is not credible. or because there are not enough exhibits (evidence) supporting the allegation.
Joe Kane
Forum
