Terzet-Digitaal Congres-15-dhr. dr. R. van Es

TERZET 25 JAAR- DIGITAAL CONGRES 2018 7 Experts) published its Code of Conduct. Three specific responsibilities are mentioned: 1. Approach. The responsibility to reasonably come and stay in contact with the client as long as is needed. This includes: the moral duty to respect the client; to supply the client with all relevant information; and to let decisions on the client´s case come about on the basis of reasonableness and fairness. 2. Action. The responsibility to investigate the consequences of all relevant options for action, and weighing them in order to reach an independent judgement. A certified expert is able to deliver sound arguments for the option chosen. 3. Attitude. The responsibility to develop self-knowledge; and to be careful and fair both in contact with the client and in making professional assessments. Against the background of these three responsibilities the code offers seven rules concerning: the supply and gathering of information; the requirements of careful reporting; financial preciseness; managing expectations; confidentiality; and respect. Next to a code two bodies were created, one administrative in nature and the other regulatory (SRA, 2010). Since then, the organization offers two-day training courses to teach professional rehabilitation counselors to make ethical decisions. In fact, the first six of them were also used as one hour group interviews (see the first section of this article). A key feature of these training sessions is the use of the three-stage model for ethical decision making to analyze case studies selected from the participants’ own caseload. Every so often, vocational rehabilitation counselors come across a case so complex that it requires a full, detailed analysis. Such an analysis can demonstrate sound ethical decision making for vocational rehabilitation counselors. As such, it is also relevant for anyone who deals with vocational rehabilitation counselors professionally, e.g. lawyers, medical doctors and insurance agents. This case study is such an example and is intended to show how the model can be applied to clarify arguments and determine the counselor’s stance. The Case Study: Vocational Rehabilitation in an Island Community This case is derived from the real life experience of a vocational rehabilitation counselor (Verhoeven, 2012). The position taken at the end of the process resulted from consultation between the author and the counselor. To protect the privacy of all individuals involved, several personal details have been changed. This is how the counselor describes the case: “My client is a 37-year old man. He is married and has three children between the ages of 4 and 9. He and his family live on one of the islands in the north of the Netherlands. He used to be a plumber, but after losing a leg in an accident he could no longer do that work. Two parties (the client’s former employer, i.e. the liable party and the client’s personal injury lawyer) hired me to mediate on the client’s behalf to find him a suitable job in a different field. After a period of career counseling, I began actively mediating for him. This resulted in a trial employment period at a small company in his hometown. He was allowed to do mostly sedentary, practical work. The trial did not go smoothly at first, but his employer gave him a six-month temporary contract anyway. After the initial six months, he received a six-month extension followed by a one-year contract. The employer was very satisfied with the employee’s job performance as well as his attitudes toward his work and his co-workers. In July 2012, the employee was told he would be given an open-ended contract on January 1, 2013. That was good news not only for him, but also for me, his vocational rehabilitation counselor, because it meant that I could soon bring what had been a relatively complex mediation process to a successful conclusion. In August 2012, the employer approached me and told me he was going to fire my client on the spot that very day. The reason was that my client had had sexual relations with his children’s babysitter, who was still a minor (16 years old). The client and his babysitter had already ended their relationship and the client had decided to stay with his wife, but the employer was standing by his decision. He wanted nothing more to do with my client. From the moment the employer and I started discussing the matter, he made it perfectly clear that our conversation was to remain confidential. The following day, my client called me. He said his boss had told him, the previous evening, that he was being fired immediately for economic reasons. As I would later discover, the employer had also insisted during that discussion that my client’s extramarital relations were not the reason for the termination of his contract. In other words, the employer gave me a different reason for firing my client than he gave my client. The employer confirmed this by telephone after I had discussed the termination with my client.