The association representing professional engineers in Alberta is appealing a court decision that would allow a company to use the term “software engineer” in job advertisements. Engineers are concerned about how the decision could lead to more unregulated use of the term “engineer.”
APEGA, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, filed the appeal on Friday after a Nov. 9 decision from Justice J.S. Little found using the term did not breach the act governing engineers in Alberta.
Little said employees with the term “software engineer” are not practising engineering as defined in the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act (EGPA). Little also found that since the term was being used in resumes and job ads as opposed to soliciting work from the public, it didn’t misrepresent the field of engineering.
APEGA said that decision could lead to increased use of the title “engineer,” citing concerns for public safety and professional integrity.
“Public trust in engineering is built around the title ‘engineer,’ which is associated with a standard of excellence, a commitment to the public interest, and an adherence to a code of ethics. Ensuring titles are not used in a way that is misleading is pivotal in protecting Albertans, which is the driving force behind our decision to appeal,” Jay Nagendran, P.Eng., APEGA registrar and CEO, said in a statement.
On Thursday, Alberta’s Bill 7, the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Amendment Act, received royal assent. That bill carved out an exemption from the EGPA for the term “software engineer.”
APEGA said their court appeal aims to address the potential for unauthorized use of the “engineer” title outside the technology industry. They say the “misuse” of the title could lead to confusion and lead to the hiring of people who are not qualified to practice engineering. APEGA also said the Alberta court decision could set a “concerning precedent” outside the province.
APEGA has been the profession’s regulator of engineering and geoscience for more than a century.
Comments