December 1, 1997
25.4.121
The grievor initially sought an Accommodation Deficiency Adjustment (ADA) for August 25 to September 18, 1996 or that the Staff Quarters (SQ) be deemed Temporary Accommodation. The grievor is now only seeking payment of an ADA.
The grievor was provided with SQ076 when she arrived at her posting. Because she owned a large dog, the Department agreed to provide her with a house rather than the customary apartment. Upon arrival and during her stay in SQ076, the grievor requested that numerous repairs be made to the SQ.
Less than a month later, the grievor advised management that she no longer required the use of the house since her dog had died. She therefore asked to be re-allocated to another SQ and the Department agreed to allocate her SQ073. Subsequently, the grievor submitted a request for an ADA for the period she stayed in SQ076.
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that some repairs were effected before the grievor's arrival on August 23, 1996 but no inspection and no Occupancy Agreement was prepared or signed by the parties. The representative provided details regarding some of the problems the grievor encountered upon occupying SQ076 on August 23, 1996. The Acting MAO (Mission Administration Officer) and the MPMO (Maintenance Property Management Officer) were advised but refused to clean SQ076 and its furniture. When the grievor advised the Head of Mission (HOM) on September 3, 1996 of the maintenance problems, she was told to request an ADA through FSD 25. At no time did the MAO enter the SQ to investigate the problems.
In mid-September, the MAO visited the SQ and agreed to the repairs requested.
The Bargaining Agent submitted that the grievor was not treated within the intent of FSD 25 in that no inspection was conducted by the parties prior to the grievor moving into the quarters nor was there an Occupancy Agreement signed following this required inspection. In addition, the following suitabilities were not met: mechanical systems (heating, leaky toilet and shower head) and appearance. Consequently, the Bargaining Agent requested that an ADA of 30/% be approved for the period of August 25, 1996 to September 18, 1996 which equated to approximately Cdn. $100.
The Departmental representative indicated that the grievor was assigned to the fully functional SQ076 upon her arrival at the Posting and consequently received benefits deriving from FSD 15.33(a) for relocation into a permanent Crown-held accommodation. At the same time that the decision was made to allocate the SQ076 to the grievor, a decision was also made to fence the SQ at Mission's expense. The grievor occupied the SQ for 25 days. During that stay, the grievor requested that corrective maintenance actions be taken which management promptly addressed.
The grievor's request for an ADA was denied on September 30, 1996 based on the fact that it did not meet the eligibility criteria for an ADA based upon FSD 25.10, Appendix C,4.
The Department stated that the Post felt strongly that every request had been addressed. The representative maintained that the grievor was assigned to a fully functional crown-held SQ. As well, management immediately proceeded to address her work orders for repairs and maintenance and that the re-allocation of another SQ fully satisfied all her expectations. The grievor was therefore treated within the intent of FSD 25.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Foreign Service Directives Committee report which concluded that based on the evidence presented, the grievor was not treated within the intent of FSD 25. The Committee agreed that a 20% ADA be approved.
The grievance was upheld.