What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? California
I accepted employment with a large corporation roughly 10 months ago, and one of my fringe benefits was a relocation allowance. Of course, I signed an agreement with the company's relocation service provider that stated "I am obligated to reimburse companyX/divisionA for all such monies if I resign or transfer from companyX/divisionA within one year of the date on which companyX/divisionA issues the first check in payment of a relocation expense on my behalf. I hereby agree to this condition, and authorize companyX/divisionA to deduct any relocation monies I owe companyX/divisionA in accordance with this Employee Relocation Agreement from any monies companyX/divisionA owes to me, including any wages, vacation, bonus payments or other compensation otherwise due, unless such deductions are expressly precluded by state or federal law."
Recently, another division of my company (i.e. "companyX/divisionB") has offered me a new position. The HR department of companyX/divisionB also initially stated that the company's corporate policy would allow me to transfer within the company without any obligation to payback any relocation moneys to companyX/divisionA. But more recently they appear to be waffling, stating that they are not sure if the company policy overrides the relocation service provider agreement.
Q: Does California law (or Fed law) prohibit a reimbursement obligation if I transfer to a new position within the company (but in a different division)?
Q: Which should have higher precedence, the company's corporate policy or the relocation service provider agreement?
I accepted employment with a large corporation roughly 10 months ago, and one of my fringe benefits was a relocation allowance. Of course, I signed an agreement with the company's relocation service provider that stated "I am obligated to reimburse companyX/divisionA for all such monies if I resign or transfer from companyX/divisionA within one year of the date on which companyX/divisionA issues the first check in payment of a relocation expense on my behalf. I hereby agree to this condition, and authorize companyX/divisionA to deduct any relocation monies I owe companyX/divisionA in accordance with this Employee Relocation Agreement from any monies companyX/divisionA owes to me, including any wages, vacation, bonus payments or other compensation otherwise due, unless such deductions are expressly precluded by state or federal law."
Recently, another division of my company (i.e. "companyX/divisionB") has offered me a new position. The HR department of companyX/divisionB also initially stated that the company's corporate policy would allow me to transfer within the company without any obligation to payback any relocation moneys to companyX/divisionA. But more recently they appear to be waffling, stating that they are not sure if the company policy overrides the relocation service provider agreement.
Q: Does California law (or Fed law) prohibit a reimbursement obligation if I transfer to a new position within the company (but in a different division)?
Q: Which should have higher precedence, the company's corporate policy or the relocation service provider agreement?