As is well known, the construction, metal, carpentry and glass agreements establish the obligation to carry out 20-hour classroom courses, by trade, for all personnel who must carry out tasks on construction sites (construction and metal also for any person on staff, even if they do not go to the site). No other mode of delivery is allowed, such as online training, or by videoconference (which during the confinement due to the covid pandemic created a very serious problem, as it prevented many workers from being able to work on construction sites, as face-to-face training was prohibited, but that is another matter). We have come across a deaf worker applying for the course. Obviously this worker cannot attend a "traditional" face-to-face course session, where the syllabus is practically based on the teacher's explanations, and the visual aids are only for support (projection of slides, etc.). For this type of case, the training should be carried out with means adapted to the disability, and for deafness, it is logical to carry out the course with an online methodology. After contacting the Metal Foundation (the worker is part of this agreement), they communicated that they had not foreseen cases like this, that in any case the course should be face-to-face, that the Foundation itself does not carry out the course for her, and that the training entity should adapt the course with the necessary means. If it has to be face-to-face, the only possible option is to have simultaneous translation with sign language throughout the course, through the presence of the translator. A very high cost to train her. And taking into account that this training is a cost that must be assumed by the company, or by the workers themselves when they have never worked in the sector (because it is common knowledge that companies practically only hire workers who already have the course, so in practice workers have been forced to pay for the course to be able to access their first job, but this is also another issue), the imposition of this extra cost, between 5 and 10 times higher than for a worker without disability, is discriminatory. We refer the situation to the associations of people with deafblindness so that they can put pressure on whoever is responsible to solve this serious issue.