Training organizations charged with issuing false documents.

Scenario 1:

An Employee shows up for in person training and their ID is checked by their instructor. They only receive 50% of the required content, and the employee is issued proof of training.

Scenario 2:

An employee logs into a webpage and their ID is checked. Their participation is not monitored, and the employee is issued proof of training

Scenario 3:

An employee is provided a website address for a course that the employer paid for. An unidentified individual completes the course in the name of the employee, and the employee is issued proof of training.

One of these scenarios resulted in the training organization being charged with 17 counts of issuing false documents, another of these serious is in direct contravention of published standards (ANSI, IACET, etc) while the third directly contravenes regulatory interpretation of when a training organization is allowed to issue “proof of training”.

In each scenario, proof of training is provided by a third-party organization in the name of an individual that they know did not take the training, took only a portion of the training, or initiated the training but don’t know if they completed the training and/or they did not know who logged in to or participated in the training.

·       Employees rely on training to provide them the skills and information they require to keep themselves safe on a job.

·       Employers rely on proof of training to ensure their workforce have the knowledge and abilities they require to mitigate operational risk to protect their workforce, the environment, and their investments.

·       Regulators rely on proof of training to demonstrate and Employer’s compliance with legislation.

·       The Courts rely on proof of training to demonstrate an Employer’s due diligence.

A recent police investigation uncovered the sale of proof of training certificates to individuals that had not completed the training. Many prominent figures spokeout when these charges became public, indicating their concern as third-party training is relied on for mitigating many types of workplace risks. Sadly, some of these figures were only concerned that the money for the proof of training certificates provided was not directed at the organizations that provide the training.

While courts, regulators and standard setting bodies are all clear as to what can be considered ‘proof of training’, more and more companies are getting into the business of online training.  It is widely known that online training delivery has been characterized as a race to the bottom as many organizations position themselves to offer the cheapest possible training, the shortest duration of training, and training not compliant with regulatory requirements.

There is hope, however. Every month, more leading online training providers are creating effective and engaging content utilizing technology to ensure that the individual logging into the training is who they say they are, and that that individual is the one that participates in the training itself. These organizations currently include Energy Safety Canada, Alliance Safety Council, PCL Construction, Suncor Energy, the Canadian Food Safety Group, and more.

It is important to remember that employers have a choice. They have the most to gain and the most to lose in many scenarios. So long as they’re willing to pay for ‘proof of training’ from organizations that don’t verify the identity of the individual taking the training or confirm that they participate in the training, there will always be third-party training organizations lurking around the corner willing to take their money. False proof of training certificates will be issued daily, and the race to the bottom will continue.

Get in touch today to learn more about our best-in-class online participation monitoring & proctoring software solution.