• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New company policy, am I reading this right?

Aves

Aves

Lifer
This is kind a long but I hope some of you guys have the time to check it out.

Basically my company is implementing a policy to recoup tuition money they paid if an employee leaves the company which I think is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

Now when I read this I get the impression that if I were to quit/get fired/etc within 6 months of getting a check from them I would owe them a portion of the total amount I've gotten from them since I was hired, not just what I got in the 6 month time period. Is that how you guys take it?

WHEREAS, the Company has or will pay certain costs and expenses related to Employee?s education; and

WHEREAS, the Company desires to be reimbursed for said costs and expenses in the event the employer-employee relationship between the Company and Employee is terminated within one hundred eighty (180) days of the last payment made to Employee to cover Employee?s education costs and expenses.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the employment or continued employment of the Employee, the Employee does hereby covenant and agree as follows:

1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be deemed to have commenced on the date first indicated in the signature block below and shall continue through the term of employment of the Employee; provided, however, that the repayment obligations undertaken by Employee pursuant to this Agreement shall survive any termination of Employee?s employment with the Company until repayment is completed, regardless of the reason for such termination.

2. Reimbursement for Education Expenses and Costs. If Employee?s employment relationship is terminated, voluntarily or involuntarily, within one hundred eighty (180) days of the last day of payment made, Employee shall reimburse the Company for all or a portion of all expenses paid by the Company, based upon the following table:. Number of Days Employed

After Last Education Payment Made by Employer to Employee: Percentage of Reimbursement due from Employee to Employer:

90 days or less 100 percent (total amount of reimbursement)
91 thru 120 days 75 percent
121 thru 150 days 50 percent
151 thru 180 days 25 percent
Click to expand...


What I get out of it is that this scenario is possible:

I have recieved say $XX,000 from them between Jan 2001 and Dec 2004.

Now if I were to get a $Y,000 check from them this June for the current semester and then got layed off in July, 30 days later, I would owe them 100% of $XX,000 + $Y,000, not just the $Y,000

Perhaps I'm just reading it wrong, any input?
 
no, you just pay a prorated portion of what you were reimbursed for - dependant on the lenth of time passed from payment to severance of employment.
 
I guess what's throwing me off is the word all in this paragraph:

2. Reimbursement for Education Expenses and Costs. If Employee?s employment relationship is terminated, voluntarily or involuntarily, within one hundred eighty (180) days of the last day of payment made, Employee shall reimburse the Company for all or a portion of all expenses paid by the Company, based upon the following table:. Number of Days Employed
Click to expand...
 
You cannot be held responsible for any payment occurring before "the date first indicated in the signature block below".

This date should be the date that the letter was received. If it is backdated, you are being screwed over and you need to not sign it and find a new employer.

The wording is very poor, but as it stands it does refer to the total compensation received after "The term of this Agreement shall be deemed to have commenced on the date first indicated in the signature block below". IOW, if you get a check in June for this semester, and leave in July, you will owe them 100% of $Y,000.

Unless "The term of this Agreement shall be deemed to have commenced on the date first indicated in the signature block below" refers to a prior date.
 
So lets fast forward the dates,

I have recieved say $XX,000 from them between March 2005 and Dec 2006.

Now if I were to get a $Y,000 check from them this June 2007 for the current semester and then got layed off in July, 30 days later, I would owe them 100% of $XX,000 + $Y,000, not just the $Y,000
 
Originally posted by: aves2k
I guess what's throwing me off is the word all in this paragraph:

2. Reimbursement for Education Expenses and Costs. If Employee?s employment relationship is terminated, voluntarily or involuntarily, within one hundred eighty (180) days of the last day of payment made, Employee shall reimburse the Company for all or a portion of all expenses paid by the Company, based upon the following table:. Number of Days Employed
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That looks as though it's suppose to be punctuated thusly: "... reimburse the Company for all, or a portion of all, expenses..."

I believe that this would apply to longer-term things than just the last payment though. I.e. if you're taking one class and you receive several payments over a long period of time then you'll be on the hook for all of the expenses for that class as the table indicates.

At least, that's the logical view from the company's standpoint.

ZV
 
Originally posted by: aves2k
So lets fast forward the dates,

I have recieved say $XX,000 from them between March 2005 and Dec 2006.

Now if I were to get a $Y,000 check from them this June 2007 for the current semester and then got layed off in July, 30 days later, I would owe them 100% of $XX,000 + $Y,000, not just the $Y,000
Click to expand...

As I said, it is poorly written. Part of it depends on whether the word "last" is used to mean "most recent" or if it is meant to mean "final". You should seek clarification from your company if you would not agree to paying 100% of XX,00 + $Y,000. Also, do not accept verbal clarifiaction. Request a new document that is clearly worded.

As it is worded, the changing of "last" to "most recent" would help your case if you had to seek arbitration, but in and of itself, that changes only the possibility of interpretation - it still does not make the document transparent.
 
Isn't this what the HR department is for?

I don't think they can continuously pile on the amounts they're paying you. I believe this would actually apply to EACH payment they give you. The usual terms are something like you must stay with the company for one year after the last payment was made, which I think this is supposed to mean but is poorly worded.

Example: In January you get a check. In you get a check. In March you get a check. In June you get a check. You quit in July. Assuming that you quit a full 180 days after you got the check in January, you would not owe ANYTHING on the January check. For March, you would owe 25 percent if the date was less than 151 days. For June's check, you would have to pay back the full amount.

IF it applied to all the payments they ever gave you, then you would end up paying them back for monies that they long since got their worth out of you for, like if you stayed for 5 years after your first reimbursement, they can't expect you to pay them back anything from that first check just because you went back for one course recently.

The new agreement refers to each individual reimbursement, not the total amount ever paid. The part about the date indicates when the new agreement goes into effect, and any payments made before that date, even one day before, are covered by whatever previous policy they had.
 
Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
Isn't this what the HR department is for?

I don't think they can continuously pile on the amounts they're paying you. I believe this would actually apply to EACH payment they give you. The usual terms are something like you must stay with the company for one year after the last payment was made, which I think this is supposed to mean but is poorly worded.

Example: In January you get a check. In you get a check. In March you get a check. In June you get a check. You quit in July. Assuming that you quit a full 180 days after you got the check in January, you would not owe ANYTHING on the January check. For March, you would owe 25 percent if the date was less than 151 days. For June's check, you would have to pay back the full amount.
Click to expand...


Well your example is what I hope they mean and I will clarify that with them tomorrow when I actually go to work. It's a little hard to go to HR when I'm 75miles away and they're closed.
 
I was just saying, ATOT isn't exactly the first place I'd go to get legal advice. 🙂

Incidentally, I don't think it would be legal for them to require you to pay back the money if they laid you off, as opposed to firing or quitting. It ought to be clarified in the policy what "terminated" means.
 
Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
I was just saying, ATOT isn't exactly the first place I'd go to get legal advice. 🙂

Incidentally, I don't think it would be legal for them to require you to pay back the money if they laid you off, as opposed to firing or quitting. It ought to be clarified in the policy what "terminated" means.
Click to expand...

Voluntarily, or involuntarily

EDIT: I would request that a new wording, cuz that is pretty dumb that'd you have to pay it if they fire you. Request wording such as "involuntarily for performance purposes" or something like that, not just gettting laid off.
 
I believe their intent is to only collect on the last reimbursement, but it's not worded very well. My company requires a portion to be paid back if the employee quits within two years of the last reimbursement.

But if someone gets laid off, they don't owe anything. And if someone is taking a class at the time of a layoff, the company will still reimburse for it if they finish the class.

I don't know what the rule is if someone is fired for cause.
 
It would be hard for them to require ex post facto reimbursement past a certain date you agree to and sign to. I'd of course clarify it at work, because they'd know best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top