Relocation Expense Repayment Agreement

What is the name of your state? Minnesota

(For reference, I work for Company A, who used to be owned by Company B until Company C purchased us from Company B).

When I accepted a job with Company A, I signed a Relocation Expense Repayment Agreement with Company B (the parent company). In short, if I did not stay for 18 months, I would be required to pay back some of the relocation fees.

I am now in month 16 of my employment. During the past year, Company B sold us to Company C (a completely different corporate entity). During the sale review process, our HR department kept us updated on any questions, concerns and information that came up through an internal intranet web site. It was basically a list of potential issues that people were concerned with (401K, pension, compensation, etc.).

One portion of this internal site specifically asked this question:

“I was hired and received a signing bonus and/or relocation benefits. If Company A is sold within 18 months, will I have to pay it back?”

The answer was printed as a very simple “no.”

So, let's fast-forward a bit. I have accepted a new job, and given my two weeks notice. But then last week in my exit interview, an HR person told me that I would need to pay a portion of the fees back. I told her that I believed that I was not responsible for any remaining portion of the relocation costs due to the fact that we had been sold and our own Internal Communications had explicitly stated in an online document that if the company was sold, I would NOT be responsible for these costs.

She didn't seem familiar with this and patronized me a little, so I retrieved a printed copy of this document and showed it to her. Again being fairly dismissive, she told me that I was still responsible for payback and the new owner, Company C, would pursue it. Then, in a somewhat strange aside she also told me that “if this changes or affects your decision (to leave) that would be fine" and that "it would be ok for me to change my mind and come back." I was unsure what exactly she was implying at this point, but with no intention of staying, I consider her remarks inappropriate coercion.

I have the intranet document and I also have what I originally signed from Company B (who is no longer connected to either Company A or C in any way). But I am now left wondering what my situation is.

Your situation is that you read WAY too much into the Q&A. I very much doubt that they intended to be saying that if the company was sold, all relocation benefit paybacks were cancelled. Granted, the company should have made it clear what they meant, but I strongly suspect that what they meant to say was that if anyone lost their job due to the sale, they would not be held to the agreement. I could be wrong, and I agree they should have been more clear, but I seriously doubt that they intended to say that no one would have any payback in case of a sale.

Nor do I see the HR manager's comment as coercion or inappropriate. She was telling you that IF your decision to leave was based on your not having to pay back the relocation, they would allow you to rescind your resignation. They are not required to do that by law, so rather than "inappropriate coercion", it was reassurance that you would still have your job IF you chose to change your mind. They could have left you swinging in the breeze.

It will be up to the new owners whether to pursue the relocation payback or not.

Perhaps I did read too much into that portion of the Q & A, but I also feel that the company has a responsibility to provide accurate information. If they didn't mean to say that no one would have any payback in case of a sale, they should not have said it.

My decision to leave had nothing to do with having to pay back the relocation fees. But based on the information they gave me, I did not think it would be an issue anyway.