May 1, 2019
25.4.171
Background
The grievor worked at Department A and was assigned to City D, Country X in 2010. Their 48-month assignment in City D ended in August 2014, and their cross-posting assignment to City E, Country Y started in September 2014. While still posted at City D the grievor returned to North America in response to a personal matter and was on leave from August 14 to August 19, 2014.
On December 19, 2014, the grievor received an email from management in City D stating that the grievor had surrendered their Staff Quarters (SQ) back to Mission without obvious cleaning being conducted. As such, cleaning beyond what was deemed to be a normal ‘move-out’ clean was required in order to bring the condition of the premises up to a level consistent with tenant obligations in accordance with the Occupancy Agreement. Given this, the grievor was provided with an invoice ($2,489.03) to cover the cleaning expenses which were above and beyond the normal expenses incurred by the Department for ‘move-out’ cleaning.
The grievor agreed upon receipt of the invoice to reimburse $280 to cover the cost of removing dog feces from the exterior of the property. In 2015, the Employer recovered the remainder of the invoice in full. The grievor contests the payment for all expenses beyond the $280.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the refusal by Department A to refund the excessive cost of cleaning the Staff Quarter and associated furniture and furnishings in City D, Country X.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
It is the Bargaining Agent representative’s position that the amount of time dedicated to cleaning the grievor’s former SQ appears to be more than double what a ‘deep clean’ would have required. The amount of the invoice beyond the dog matter removal is being contested and the representative submitted that at least 50% of the amount recovered for cleaning the SQ is excessive and ought to be reimbursed to the grievor.
The cleaning invoice indicates that the cleaning crew dedicated 61 hours to cleaning the SQ, 40 hours of which were dedicated to decontamination. The Bargaining Agent representative submits, based on square footage, that a regular cleaning of the SQ should have taken less than 12 hours and that a ‘deep clean’ typically requires 2-2.5 times more cleaning hours relative to regular cleaning. Given this, the invoice is excessive as no more than 30 hours should have been required. It was noted that the grievor had the SQ professionally cleaned in December 2010, which had taken 14 hours and was $551.60 CAD for the service. The representative also argues that the number of hours for cleaning and the amount invoiced do not align with Canadian standards.
While it was acknowledged that the grievor was bound by the terms and conditions of the Occupancy Agreement due to the requirement stipulated within FSD 25.2.3, there are a number of factors that should be considered. Upon arrival at post in 2010, the grievor had refused an offer of new furniture for the SQ due to the grievor’s awareness that the furniture would collect dog hair. The Bargaining Agent representative submits that the grievor should not be subject to covering the cost of cleaning the furniture that the mission had previously offered to replace.
Furthermore, it was suggested that the grievor’s ability to clean the SQ was compromised as the grievor had to temporarily leave post six (6) days before their pack-up was scheduled to attend to the death of the grievor’s father-in-law. Upon return, the grievor was unable to proceed with a thorough vacuuming due to their own vacuum having already been packed and the vacuum provided by the mission was unsuitable for animal hair collection.
Finally, it was noted that the SQ was put up for sale after the grievor left post. Given this, the Bargaining Agent representative submits that the grievor may have been held to a different standard relative to other employees leaving a SQ. It was suggested that ‘staging’ a home for sale likely required a different standard of cleanliness, relative to transitioning from one employee to another. In light of the above, the grievor should be reimbursed at least 50% of the cleaning costs which had been recovered.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative’s position is that the grievor showed a lack of engagement towards their responsibilities as a tenant and that there is nothing to support that the fees for cleaning the SQ were excessive. While the grievor indicates that the excessive cost of cleaning the SQ should be partially refunded by the Department, the representative refuted this by providing an overview of the circumstances surrounding the grievor’s departure from post, and the invoice with all the costs that were charged to the grievor and the ones covered by the Mission.
The Departmental representative clarified that although the grievor temporarily left post, they did return to the SQ for approximately 10 days, as the grievor’s cross-posting was delayed due to an evacuation in City E, Country Y. Therefore, the employer did not see special circumstances that would have prevented the grievor from fulfilling their responsibilities as a tenant. Furthermore, it was submitted that the grievor was aware of their responsibilities as they previously contacted HEA inquiring about cleaning entitlements and it was in the Occupancy Agreement, which the grievor had signed in City D and on two previous postings.
As stated under Section 7 of the Occupancy Agreement, the SQ and its premises must be left clean and in good condition at the time of a tenant’s departure. The Department submits that the grievor had left the SQ without cleaning, with garbage in the SQ, food in the fridge, items in the garage along with accumulated dog hair and dust, and without aeration for weeks which had left the SQ with an awful smell. It was further submitted that the grievor had not, prior to or after their departure, tried to coordinate with Mission Management nor advise them that there was significant cleaning required.
Due to the state that the SQ was found in, a simple “routine exit cleaning” was not sufficient, and in fact, the initial cleaning company refused to provide their services before a preliminary cleaning (decontamination) was done. It was noted that the Mission had to hire another company to bring the condition of the premises up to a standard consistent with what was required for there to be a routine surface cleaning afterwards.
It should be noted, in the process of selling other SQs, the Department covered the costs of “move-out cleaning” for all SQ’s including the grievor’s. The portion of the invoice that was charged to the grievor was the decontamination cleaning of the house, the furniture and area rugs, garbage removal, and removal of dog fecal matter. The representative submitted that according to individuals who had seen the condition of the SQ, the number of hours were necessary considering the condition in which the grievor had left it in. It was also noted that the cleaning standards in Country X are not the same as in Canada, in which the formers’ cleaning companies are unionized and prices are significantly higher than the latter.
Regarding the disposal of furniture, the representative indicated that it is a common practice for missions to have furniture cleaned in order for it to be sold. Disposal does not mean to throw out. The intent of disposal is always to receive the best value possible for the benefit of the Crown. In regards to the grievor’s case, the sofas and rugs were too unhygienic and in no condition to be sold as is. The representative submitted that the grievor knew the furniture would be disposed of once they left the SQ, but despite this, the furniture was not left in the same condition the grievor had received it in.
In light of the preceding arguments, the representative stated that it would not be responsible to spend public funds and hold Canadians accountable for the lack of engagement of an employee towards their responsibilities.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Foreign Service Directives Committee which concluded the grievor had been treated within the intent of the Foreign Service Directive 25. It was noted that the grievor had responsibilities under the Occupancy Agreement to leave the Staff Quarter in good condition upon their departure. While other factors were involved, the grievor’s lack of communication with the Mission and inaction prior to vacating the Staff Quarter did not demonstrate a commitment to fulfilling their responsibilities. While the Department agreed to cover the costs of a standard cleaning, anything above and beyond becomes the responsibility of the grievor. The grievance is therefore denied.