A former unpaid intern’s complaint seeking back wages from Bell Mobility has been rejected by a federal labour inspector.

Jainna Patel, who worked for five weeks in Bell’s Professional Management Program in Mississauga, filed a labour complaint in 2012 with Human Resources and Development Canada, claiming the program had no educational value and that she was doing the same work as paid employees.

Patel had hoped her complaint would improve other interns’ experiences across the country and was encouraged by similar successful complaints in the U.S.

After conducting an investigation, Human Resources and Development inspector Liela Handanovic rejected Patel’s complaint, saying Bell is not required to pay her a wage.

“You acknowledged that you were aware that the program was unpaid and that there was no guarantee of any kind of employment,” she wrote in a letter received this month.

The Canada Labour Code does not explicitly address internships, but most employers say they are a form of training exempt from payment. Critics say employers often use unpaid interns to perform entry-level work that benefits the company.

The Bell program is housed in a dedicated facility in Mississauga where 300 unpaid interns perform a variety of tasks including marketing and data analytics. The program accepts post-secondary students, new immigrants seeking Canadian job experience and young professionals looking to make a career change.

Bell requires its interns — called “associates” — to work full time for three months.

In her labour complaint, Patel described being lured into the program with promises of gaining valuable training for which she was willing to forgo pay. Once there, she spent long hours transcribing video, conducting telephone surveys and filling in spreadsheets.

After raising concerns that she was doing menial tasks and receiving little training, Patel quit the internship and filed a labour complaint with the federal government.

“The modules you participated in and the training activities you completed are not based on the needs of Bell at any given time and Bell did not use the work prepared by you to support or benefit its business operations,” wrote Handanovic. “The data you gathered or analyzed was not used or shared with Bell as the data used is publicly available, stale or statistically insignificant.”

Patel has appealed the decision.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Read more about: