Unfortunately, perception is not always reality. The member contacted our company to service the fireplace system and install a top mounted damper. Upon our arrival, the fireplace system was found to contain heavy amounts of creosote and that the inner diameter of the flue tile was too small to properly vent the fireplace. Due to these condidtions, extra precautions are required to prevent spillage. (dust escaping into the living area), My assistant, who is NOT my son, but a hired employee, was instructed to set up everything we needed to complete the cleaning without causing a mess for the homeowner. (Dusting a house while servicing the chimney is a cardinal sin in our industry). During this time, I informed the member that I was going on the roof to check the chimney exteriors. At this time, he asked if I would inspect the "other" chimney as he expected that it woud require rebuilding. When on the roof, I took photos of both systems, showing that the fireplace chimney had been rebuilt from the roofline up and that the "other" chimney had a cap inproperly installed on it which may cause venting problems, as the member expected, the "other" chimney does have other issues as well. A fan had to also be set up on the fireplace chimney to make sure that all the dust created during cleaning would not escape into the house. As our assistant tech had been with our company for some time, it was expected that that he could perform what is required from him. At this particular job, with the conditions present, his actions could have had worse repercussions for the homeowner than the assistant being corrected. It only takes a few seconds to fill a room with dust. As for the members comment pertaining to "my son", "if he couldn't bring him what he asked for and needed he was going to stop letting him help", quite simply did not occur. The individual is a paid employee of the company, performing his duties, I was not just letting him help. Although it is quite possible that if his actions, or lack thereof, resulted in damage to the member's home, he would no longer be an employee of our company. Upon the member's questioning about the other chimney, in order to properly ascertain the function of any system, we must find out what appliance, if any, is using the system. As I had already been on the roof, taken pictures for the member, I was now at the point of establishing what the chimney was being used for. A standard operating procedure. To my knowledge, I did not use sarcasm in informing the member of what I needed, I simply stated that we need to know what the system is being used for. When it was discovered that it was a vent fan in the kitchen, (which is not uncommon in older homes), I did not act surprised but informed him of the function of the chimney. His comment about "acted as if I was the biggest moron he had ever met" is all perception. I did not say or imply anything of the sort. After the initial inspection of both systems was complete, the cleaning and damper cap installation was then completed without incident and we then performned a complimentary scan of the fireplace flue system, (taking a digital camera inside the chimney to inspect the interior). The scan revealed a hole in the chimney flue at the upstairs level. The hole had a metal cap on it and the tile above it had been damaged. When I asked the member what room was located directly above the fireplace and if there was anything on the wall, he stated that there was nothing wrong with the wall. I showed him the monitor to the scanner, which had the hole and cap displayed. He then said, "well, there is a cap on the wall where a woodstove used to be installed". This is quite different than "there is nothing on the wall". A solid fuel flue system can only service one appliance, be it a fireplace, woodstove, etc. I informed him of this and the damaged tile above the breech in the system. We informed him that this area requires to be properly sealed and repaired. Placing a cap on a hole in a woodburning flue system that is in contact with a combustible wall is a hazard. He didn't want to hear about the inspection results and asked what the amount due was. We completed the required paperwork, thanked him for using our company and left. He did not mention anything to us or me about anything being unsatisfactory. The member then contacted our office and asked to speak to the Human Resources Dept.. which would be our office manager Jenny. He stated to her, " the employee that serviced my chimney either needs an attitude adjustment or a vacation" and would like to speak to the owner of the company concerning this employee. Our office manager was completely taken aback by this and quite honestly, didn't know how to respond to the member other than to tell him that she would have him call upon his return to the office. She informed me of this situation upon my return to the office. I was also surprised by this as he did not say anything concerning his dissatisfaction while we where at his home. I did call, as promised, to discuss this with him. I stated that I was the tech at his home, that I was in fact the owner of the company, I apoligized for any actions he felt was insulting or offensive and would welcome his phone call to discuss the issue. We did not receive a phone call. I believe that if he would have contacted us, we would have been given the opportunity to fully explain the entire scenrio, thus possibly avoiding this unsatisfactory report with this member.