Mcodox

We are just working through employment contracts for a job offer and there is something a tad worrying. There is a clause in the Relocation Agreement to the effect if the employee is 'terminated with cause' or voluntarily leaves the company within 2 years, the company can request repayment of the attributed value of the relocation benefits. Gulp.

Is this a typical clause / has anyone got experience of this? Any thoughts appreciated...thanks!

rebs

Yes, my husband's contract had a similar clause (it was an secondment to the US). I think the repayment was tapered down to nothing after 2 years.

I would imagine it is a fairly standard clause as it can be quite expensive for a company to relocate employees.

Bob

That's typical.

Sometimes you can get it on a sliding scale though so can try to punt for that.

It basically means if you're laid off of they can you, it's on them, if you hate it and quit or royally phook up and they sack you, it's on you.

If they're paying for the relocation, it would be daft of them not to, considering it could cost them many tens of thousands to bring you over and if they were to get you a green card on the get go you'd have no other reason to stick around if you didn't want to.

Bink

It's typical. As Bob and Rebs mentioned, there's normally a sliding scale. For instance mine was 100% repayable within the first year and then prorated at any point up until the second year was up at which point nothing was owed.

Basically it's to protect the company for paying for relocation and then an employee just jumping ship to another company after having all their expenses paid.

tonrob

I had that in my contract too.

ChocolateBabz

Yep my hubby had it too, think it had a two year limit.

Mcodox

Thanks all, its good to know we've got company and that it wasn't specially made up for us! Ours has a sliding scale after Yr1 too.

I can understand why they do it given the costs to them, it just is something we need to be aware of the risks.. Thanks all!

Bob

On the flip side, you could and should angle for the same as a repatriation clause.

Would add another layer of job securing when there is none, meaning you'd be thousands of dollars more expensive to lay off compared to the person in the next cube if things were to go funky with the company, especially when they could just march that person out of the door that day without notice or severance.

Hawkini

+1 For this - I was made redundant last year on a L-1 - and the law protects (to a certain extent) H-1 holders but gives nothing for L-1. Basically the employer has protection if YOU leave, but gives you none if they get rid of you -given the US "At Will" employment laws. I was EXTREMELY lucky they paid me severance - it wasn't in my contract (gulp) when I moved to the US but they felt "bad" I guess.