Skip to main content
Clean Best logo
Menu
Call 02 5839 30120485 000 860

Surry Hills NSW 2010

A complaint about a particular cleaner on Surry Hills premises

A complaint about the work is straightforward. A complaint about the person is not, and it needs handling carefully in both directions. On a Surry Hills site where the client and the cleaner see each other regularly, getting this wrong damages more than the arrangement.

Request a fixed quote Call 02 5839 3012

In short

A complaint about an individual is separated into what is alleged: conduct, performance, or fit with the site. Conduct is investigated immediately and taken seriously. Performance is investigated the same way as any service issue, including looking at whether the shift is realistic. Fit is a legitimate reason for a change and does not require justification.

Clean Best speaks to the cleaner rather than acting on one account alone, except where the allegation is serious enough to warrant immediate removal from the site. Clean Best attends Surry Hills premises from Seven Hills, and the client is told what was done rather than only that it was handled.

Separating conduct from performance

These require different responses and conflating them produces bad outcomes in both directions. A conduct allegation, such as inappropriate behaviour, dishonesty or a safety breach, is a serious matter and is investigated as one, including removal from the site during the investigation where the allegation warrants it. It is not treated as a performance conversation. Treating one as the other is unfair in one direction and inadequate in the other.

A performance complaint, by contrast, is investigated exactly like any service issue. What was the task, what was the shift like, was the area accessible, is the scope realistic. Attributing a performance problem to the individual without that investigation frequently means replacing a competent cleaner and watching the same problem appear with the next one. Replacing a competent cleaner and watching the same problem recur helps nobody at all.

Hearing the cleaner

Acting on a single account without speaking to the person is unfair and it usually produces a wrong answer. The cleaner frequently has information nobody else has: an area that was locked, a request they were given directly, an instruction from somebody in the building, a piece of equipment that failed. None of that is available from the complaint alone. A single account is a starting point rather than a conclusion.

The exception is a serious allegation, where the cleaner is removed from the site while the matter is investigated. That is a protective step rather than a finding, and it is explained as such to everybody involved. What does not happen is a cleaner being removed permanently on the basis of an unexamined account, which is neither fair nor a reliable way to resolve anything. Fairness here is not a courtesy; it is what makes the outcome reliable.

Fit is a legitimate reason

Sometimes a client simply wants a different person on their site, without an allegation of any kind. That is a legitimate request and it is acted on without requiring a justification. Small premises where the client and the cleaner interact regularly depend on that relationship working, and a mismatch is nobody's fault and not worth turning into a performance discussion. Requiring a justification for a fit request simply makes clients stop asking.

Handled that way it also protects the cleaner, who is moved rather than marked. A cleaner who does not suit one site frequently suits another perfectly well, and treating a fit issue as a performance issue is unfair to somebody who has done nothing wrong. Being clear about which of the three is being raised is what makes the right response possible. Naming which of the three is being raised is what makes the right response possible.

Handling a complaint about an individual

  • Conduct, performance and fit distinguished before any response
  • Conduct allegations investigated seriously and promptly
  • Removal from site during investigation where an allegation warrants it
  • Performance complaints investigated as service issues, including shift realism
  • The cleaner's account heard before a conclusion is drawn
  • Fit accepted as a legitimate reason for a change without justification
Clean Best supervisor inspecting facility cleaning in Blacktown NSW

Working in Surry Hills and the Inner City

Surry Hills in the Inner City holds creative offices, hospitality, retail and medical suites, mostly smaller tenancies where the same few people occupy the premises and the cleaner becomes a familiar presence. In that setting the working relationship between the client and the individual matters as much as the technical quality of the clean. Clean Best attends Surry Hills premises from Seven Hills, and a complaint about a person is separated into conduct, performance or fit before any response, because those three need entirely different handling.

Questions about Surry Hills

Can we ask for a different cleaner?

Yes, and you do not need to justify it. Sometimes a client simply wants a different person, without any allegation, and on smaller premises where the client and cleaner interact regularly that is entirely reasonable. The cleaner is moved rather than marked, since somebody who does not suit one site frequently suits another perfectly well. Continuity matters, so a change is not made lightly, but a fit request is enough on its own.

What happens with a serious allegation?

It is investigated as a serious matter, and the cleaner is removed from the site during the investigation where the allegation warrants it. Removal at that stage protects everybody and implies no conclusion, and it is described that way to all parties. It is not handled as a performance conversation, because it is a different kind of issue entirely. Nothing is concluded from an unexamined account, and the investigation is completed either way.

Will you speak to the cleaner before acting?

Yes, except where an allegation is serious enough to warrant immediate removal pending investigation. Acting on one account is unfair and usually produces a wrong answer, since the cleaner frequently has information nobody else has: a locked area, a direct request from somebody in the building, or a piece of equipment that failed. Hearing both accounts also tends to produce a resolution that lasts rather than one that is imposed.

Why investigate a performance complaint rather than just replace the cleaner?

Because replacing a cleaner on a site where the real cause is scope, timing or access simply resets the clock and the next person fails in the same way. The investigation looks at the task, the shift, the access and whether the scope is realistic. Where performance genuinely is the issue, the change is made. Where the cause is scope or timing, that is what changes, and the cleaner stays.

Will we be told what happened?

You are told what was done rather than only that the matter was handled, within the limits of what can properly be shared about an individual's employment. Where the cause turned out to be something other than the person, that is stated plainly, because a client told a cleaner was dealt with when the real cause was the shift will see the issue return. Being straightforward about the cause is what prevents the same issue returning under a new name.

Related pages

Get a fixed written quote for Surry Hills

Free walkthrough, scope in writing, price back within 24 hours.

Request a quote
Call nowEmail us