FSD 15 - Cleaning Cost

The grievor sought the cancellation of an invoice from the Department covering an amount for incidental expenses which the Department claimed she owed, as well the issuance of a cheque in her favour for cleaning costs under FSD 15.

The grievor claimed costs incurred to have her carpets de-flead and de-ticked as required in her lease. An amount of US $99.44 was deducted from her paycheque to cover the invoice.

The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor submitted a relocation expense claim under FSD 15 which included a US $155 charge for the cost of carpet cleaning treatments required by her lease.

The representative referred to section 15.27 which provides for reimbursement of actual expenses to fulfill the terms of an employee's lease. Reference was also made to a clause in the tenant's lease which specified that "The tenant agrees to arrange for and pay the costs of having the house de-flead and de-ticked by a professional exterminator...".

The Bargaining Agent was of the view that the grievor met the criteria stipulated in 15.27a) in that the grievor did incur the expense for the carpet treatments and the expense was a direct result of a term of the lease for her former residence.

The representative maintained that the Department's claim that the carpet cleaning and the "de-ticking" is covered under FSD 15.31, is a false one for two reasons. First, FSD 15.31, Incidental relocation expense allowance, is, as it suggests for incidentals; according to the definition found in Webster's Dictionary", "minor items" (as of expense) that are not particularized". In this case, the carpet cleaning and de-ticking had been specified in the terms of the grievor's lease; it was therefore not a "minor" item that was not "particularized". It was in fact a legal stipulation. Secondly, the grievor like any other employee required to relocate, did in fact, receive a $1841 incidental allowance. A list of the incidental expenses claimed was provided.

As for the Department's contention that reimbursing the grievor for the required carpet cleaning would place her in a more favourable situation than other employees serving in Canada, the representative argued that leases in the Ottawa-Hull area or other posts do not routinely call for these treatments, as they do in the area in question. In addition, it was noted that while de-fleaing and de-ticking cleaning was required in accordance with the lease, there was no proof that there was actual damage to the carpets.

It was the Bargaining Agent's position that the Department had failed to demonstrate why the grievor's claim did not meet the criteria of this particular directive.

The Departmental representative explained that the grievor signed the lease upon arrival at her posting and agreed to the conditions of the lease. As she owned a cat, she was responsible for any damages made to the property by her pet.

The representative noted that Foreign Service Directive 15.27e) provides for reimbursement in the amount of $100 for professional cleaning of the residence after the household effects have been loaded. As well, FSD 15.31 provides for a non-accountable allowance of $1800 for which receipts are not required to compensate an employee for those incidental relocation expenses which are directly and wholly attributable to the relocation. In the Department's view, the cleaning costs the grievor incurred were considered part of this non-accountable allowance which she received.

The Departmental representative explained that the employee would be responsible for the cleaning costs if Post Administration suspected flea infestation in a crown-owned or crown-leased housing. The representative could not confirm however, whether such a clause was standard in Ottawa or at the location in question.

The Department was therefore of the view that the grievor was treated within the intent of the FSD 15.

The Executive Committee considered the Foreign Service Directives Committee report. The Committee considered the grievance and could come to no agreement as to the intent of the Directive and therefore came to an impasse on the matter.