November 27, 2019
25.4.178
Background
The grievor who works at Department X, returned to City C from posting in November 2016, and hence shipped their personal and household effects from City D, Country N, to City C, Country M. Following their return to City C, the grievor was informed by the moving and storage company that the sealed container holding their effects had experienced a “load shift” which had caused it to topple from handling. As such, a number of the grievor’s personal and household effects were deemed damaged or missing.
The grievor was instructed to submit a claim form, along with all supporting documents to the insurance claim administrator. The grievor complied within the prescribed timelines. The submitted claim form indicated that the value of the missing or damaged items totaled $21,729. The claim form included an itemized list of missing dishes with a total value of $16,442.57.
The Department established that the actual cash value (ACV) of the grievor’s missing or damaged items is $5,052, down from the grievor’s claim of $21,729.
It should be noted that there is no dispute with respect to the reimbursement of the other items listed in the claim.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the refusal by Department X to reimburse, as per FSD 15, the true actual cash value of the household effects that were damaged within long term storage and damaged during shipment from Country N to Country M.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative presented the timeline of events and explained that the dispute lies with the interpretation of the Directive and not the facts.
In response to the Department’s initial position that the two dinner services qualified as either “valuable and unusual” or “as porcelain or a collection”, it was submitted that the dinner services were used on a daily basis. This would contradict the notion of being “unusual” or being a collection (which would be stored safely or displayed, but not used daily) and would therefore prevent the employer from making reference to FSD 15.25.6. The representative explained that when looking at a specific provision one cannot look only at specific words but one needs to look at the full picture.
With respect to the Department’s position that the dinner services constituted a “set”, it was indicated that some items (the “soupière” as an example) are not normally part of a set, that the items were bought individually and itemized in the inventory as such.
In regards to the amount of reimbursement for both dinner services, it was argued that the grievor should have received either actual cash value (ACV) or 90% replacement cost, whichever is less as per Appendix C - Depreciation Reference Table - Scheduled Guide – Section 15.21. This is not what the settlement was based on.
Given that in the Schedule of Loss Table there is an amount listed in the “replacement cost” column, it was argued that this is an acknowledgement by the employer of the items’ value since the table was prepared and provided by the insurance company and/or the Department itself.
The fact that the DLO’s second level reply did not make reference to FSD 15.25.6 or that the items were purchased individually versus as part of a set and because they are not part of a collection or an “oeuvre d’art” makes it clear in the Bargaining Agent representative’s mind that the grievor should be compensated to an amount greater then what was offered.
Regarding the grievor’s failure to provide evidence of worth for one of the two sets, it was argued that the relative value of one set of dishes compared to the other serves as reference and should be considered by the employer instead of suggesting that nothing was given to support the amounts.
In closing, it was indicated that the intent is not for the employee to pay for broken/missing goods when the grievor is not at fault.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative confirmed that two sets of dishes are in dispute (“Set A” and “Set B”).
The Departmental representative indicated that the employer agreed on the value of Set A listed in the Schedule of Loss Table since it was still commercially available. The amount related to Set B as indicated in the Schedule of Loss Table, was the amount provided by the grievor as the employer could not determine the value given that the items were no longer commercially available. Given the inability to verify the amount of Set B, the Department chose to reimburse the grievor $1000 under FSD 15.25.6 as a way to compensate the employee, who otherwise failed to present proof of purchase or an appraisal to support the amounts claimed.
The Departmental representative made clear that there was no intention of denying compensation. However, in order to reimburse an amount to the employee, the employer needed proof of value which was not provided.
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 provisions for damage and/or loss claims of household effects under FSD 15. It was noted that the provisions allow for an initial settlement based on the actual cash value which is what the Department provided to the grievor. Where the employee opts to replace the item as specified in paragraph 15.25.5(j), the difference between the amount plus applicable taxes and the actual cash value can be reimbursed upon presentation of receipts. As a result, the grievance is denied.