September 17, 2009

B.C. Industry Training Authority admits mistake in releasing apprentice info

RICHARD GILBERT

staff writer

The B.C. Industry Training Authority shared detailed information about apprenticed employees with public and private trades training institutes, angering a local non-union contractors association.

“It is offensive to the open shop sector to give out the names, addresses, telephone numbers, the level the apprentices were at and the employers they worked for,” said Philip Hochstein, president of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association (ICBA).

The ICBA found out that the ITA had given contact lists to the union-backed Piping Industry Apprenticeship Board (PIAB) for a recent advertising campaign.

The personal information was provided to public, private and union schools.

“I think the ITA was well intentioned because they want young people to go to school and get an apprenticeship, but the approach was fatally flawed,” said Hochstein. “They should have used a different approach.”

The CEO of the ITA agreed.

“The bottom line is we made a mistake in not anticipating the sensitivity of some employers receiving a letter from a union sponsored training provider,” said Kevin Evans.

The ITA recently launched a marketing campaign called to inform employers that there is a solid business case for taking advantage of the current recession to retain and hire apprentices, as well as encourage apprentices to catch up on their technical in-class training.

“This is a cross jurisdictional effort to get the word out,” Evans said.

“We have encouraged all training providers, which includes public and private, union and non-union, to leverage their resources with the marketing material that we have developed.”

Evans said the ITA provided marketing packages and press information to all their partners to help them raise awareness about their training offerings.

“This was the first time a joint training board had used this information for marketing,” explained Evans.

“Legal counsel was received and we have strict information sharing agreements with all the people that used the personal information.”

Even though the terms of this information sharing agreement were in place, Evans said there may have been a lack of communication between the school and the affiliated union office.

“The ad from the union plumbing school featured ITA logos and many of our apprentices assumed they came directly from the ITA,” said Hochstein.

“The ad included language such as ‘Your class at the PIAB is ITA designated’ and gave dates and locations for the apprentices to attend the union school.”

Some apprentices who received these ads felt they were being assigned to the union school by the ITA.

“There was a perception that it was a union communication,” said Evans.

“The communication itself created confusion in the way it was assembled. It led some apprentices to conclude that they were already enrolled in the course at the PIAB.”

Print | Email | Comment