Relocation Package

mcc86

Afternoon,

This seems like the most suitable forum for this query, but please do not hesitate to move it to a more appropriate forum if not.

My partner and I relocated for work - with one incentive being a relocation package on offer from her employers. This covered legal fees for any house moves, overlap in accommodation costs, essential goods (e.g. white goods).

The relocation package was detailed in guidance, that states if she left within 1 year she would have to pay this back in full, and if she left within 2 years she would have to pay 50% back.

Upon accepting the offer, and subsequently submitting expenses to obtain this 'relocation package' she was advised that it could not cover x,y and z, or that certain items were capped to ridiculously small amounts. We highlighted that on that basis, she could never claim back the full amount of the relocation package that was sold at interview and they eventually showed some flexibility and let her submit the original claim.


Now.... they have only paid half the sum, and state that the other half of expenses can not be released until next year (on the basis that if she left she would not be entitled to it). I've been fortunate enough to be offered a relocation package and have never encountered such issues - for one job, when I left before the 2 years, I simply paid back the 50% I claimed.


Surely it is unacceptable for an employer to tell an employee that they will cover up to X amount expense as part of a 'relocation package' and then tell them they have to cover that expense for up to 12 months before it will be covered?


Any advise to argue against their stance greatly appreciated. As you can imagine, it has left us in a tricky situation financially, at least for this next 12 month period. She would not have accepted the job offer, if this was made clear at the interview stage.

Undervalued

mcc86 wrote: »

Afternoon,

This seems like the most suitable forum for this query, but please do not hesitate to move it to a more appropriate forum if not.

My partner and I relocated for work - with one incentive being a relocation package on offer from her employers. This covered legal fees for any house moves, overlap in accommodation costs, essential goods (e.g. white goods).

The relocation package was detailed in guidance, that states if she left within 1 year she would have to pay this back in full, and if she left within 2 years she would have to pay 50% back.

Upon accepting the offer, and subsequently submitting expenses to obtain this 'relocation package' she was advised that it could not cover x,y and z, or that certain items were capped to ridiculously small amounts. We highlighted that on that basis, she could never claim back the full amount of the relocation package that was sold at interview and they eventually showed some flexibility and let her submit the original claim.


Now.... they have only paid half the sum, and state that the other half of expenses can not be released until next year (on the basis that if she left she would not be entitled to it). I've been fortunate enough to be offered a relocation package and have never encountered such issues - for one job, when I left before the 2 years, I simply paid back the 50% I claimed.


Surely it is unacceptable for an employer to tell an employee that they will cover up to X amount expense as part of a 'relocation package' and then tell them they have to cover that expense for up to 12 months before it will be covered?


Any advise to argue against their stance greatly appreciated. As you can imagine, it has left us in a tricky situation financially, at least for this next 12 month period. She would not have accepted the job offer, if this was made clear at the interview stage.

I understand your concern but realistically there is not lot she can do apart from "ask nicely" if they will change their mind or compromise.

The problem is that unless she has managed to negotiate some very unusual terms she has no job security in the first two years. In a "head hunted situation" it is sometimes possible to build in some security by negotiating an extended notice period or a pre-agreed golden handshake etc but unless something like that is in place she is very vulnerable.

I rather imagine it is not or, realistically it is unlikely you would be asking on a public forum!

If they won't budge, what does she do? Take them to court? By the sound of it the case would hinge on who the judge believed. She might win but would she have a job to go back to?

I think the moral is be very careful that all terms are properly agreed and never assume that the other party will behave honourably!

Sorry.

sangie595

I'm afraid I agree. There's a strong argument she should have asked what that package entailed, not assumed. I'd have to be honest and say that the terms described are not unusual- and caps are commonplace.

ReadingTim

mcc86 wrote: »

She would not have accepted the job offer, if this was made clear at the interview stage.

If it was such a make or break factor, why did she not ask for full details at the interview stage then?

You can't expect a company to answer a question that isn't even asked!