Should DH Sue Company?

[yoyo]

PLEASE DON'T QUOTE ME - I WILL DELETE THIS POST LATER.

DH took an international transfer and we've been in the new country for awhile now... Paid rent was not in the offer. Although paid rent is in the corporate policy, he was told that "did not apply" to the new country.

Fine, we wanted to move and were excited about the rest of it, so we took the offer. Fast forward...

DH has learned that another transferred employee is having his rent paid for (in our same city). They actually JUST signed a new rental contract - they moved from one house to another. So evidently the corporate policy DOES apply?

DH has made several inquiries and keeps getting the runaround from HR. The HR in old country says it's a matter for the new country. And vice versa. So no one will take responsibility and give him a clear answer.

At this point, the corporate policy shows that they owe him in excess of 60K. As you can imagine, this is really affecting his job satisfaction because he feels like he's being screwed.

In a nutshell, the policy should either APPLY or NOT APPLY, right? If they're paying another employee's rent and not his, isn't that benefits discrimination? If they won't address this, should he sue? Would he have a case?

FWIW, both countries in question (where we came from and where we are now) have strong labor protection laws, AND this is a publicly-traded company.

[NachoProblem]

Do your husband and the other employee have the same title?

[kellbell191]

WTF would you sue them for and why? They explained to you the offer, you accepted the offer and were happy about it, until you found out someone else had a better offer. If he feels he is being treated unfairly he should re-negotiate his contract with management.

[kadams767]

Isn't it possible that the company also told the other employee no, but that employee further negotiated for paid rent?

[madringal]

It is all about negotiaion - and it sounds like the other employee just did a better job at it. This is no different then finding out a fellow co worker was making more money for the same job. It stinks, but what can you do? If they negotiated a better benefits package then you just have to deal with it.

[yoyo]

Jun 25, 2012 8:23:19 GMT -5 NachoProblem said:

Do your husband and the other employee have the same title?

No, they do not. The other employee is higher. However, the HR policy states benefit levels according to rank.

According to the policy, DH should get X/month of rent and the other employee should get Y/month.

The HR departments are saying that the policy doesn't apply AT ALL. As in to no one. But if the other guy is getting Y, shouldn't DH get X? Isn't it discriminatory allow one employee to enjoy the benefits and not another?

[y4m]

It sounds like your DH happily accepted an offer knowing it did not include paid rent. Maybe this employee negotiated paid rent as part of his benefits package when making the move.

They do not owe your DH $60K--they were very clear with him that they would not be paying rent when he took the position. What they do for the other guy is irrelevant. He (and you) need to stop thinking you are entitled to something just because some other employee got it.

[anna7602]

Clearly it's too late to argue that he should have pressed the rental thing more before moving, so I'm not really sure what your legal rights are now.

All I know is that when we were negotiating our international relo, we were given a specific monthly rent budget upfront. We learned that the last international transfer before DH was a single person who was offered the same budget and went over it by about 15% per month, which the company paid for. We then negotiated for a larger rental amount in the budget, arguing we as a family needed more space than the single person. We also found out about other perks she got that we hadn't been offered and picked and chose among them.

Had we found out about these things after moving here, I am not sure what would have happened. DH's HR at home and HR here are handled entirely separately. We negotiated directly with HR here before moving. His HR at home has very little say in what can/should be covered while we're here.

Good luck as you try to figure this out.

[anna7602]

Are you still paying for a property in your original country? Is it possible that this other employee is getting rent covered because he/she has a mortgage at home and could not be expected to pay for two places to live while working abroad?

[kellbell191]

Jun 25, 2012 8:27:10 GMT -5 yoyo said:

Jun 25, 2012 8:23:19 GMT -5 NachoProblem said:

Do your husband and the other employee have the same title?

No, they do not. The other employee is higher. However, the HR policy states benefit levels according to rank.

According to the policy, DH should get X/month of rent and the other employee should get Y/month.

The HR departments are saying that the policy doesn't apply AT ALL. As in to no one. But if the other guy is getting Y, shouldn't DH get X? Isn't it discriminatory allow one employee to enjoy the benefits and not another?

Discrimination on the basis of _______?

It always confuses me how people jump straight from unfair to lawsuit. There is a huge land in the middle, if he is unhappy with his contract you renegotiate it, you don't start an international multi year lawsuit without basis.

[yoyo]

I completely understand what you're saying about how he accepted the offer, etc.

However, he was told that the policy DOES NOT apply. But as it turns out, the policy is GLOBAL. And the policy actually reads that it is HR's responsibility to ensure that it is equitably administered. It's not a perk - it's policy.

[y4m]

Jun 25, 2012 8:31:48 GMT -5 yoyo said:

I completely understand what you're saying about how he accepted the offer, etc.

However, he was told that the policy DOES NOT apply. But as it turns out, the policy is GLOBAL. And the policy actually reads that it is HR's responsibility to ensure that it is equitably administered. It's not a perk - it's policy.

HR obviously disagrees with you on this, yeah?

[yoyo]

Jun 25, 2012 8:30:45 GMT -5 kellbell191 said:

Jun 25, 2012 8:27:10 GMT -5 yoyo said:

No, they do not. The other employee is higher. However, the HR policy states benefit levels according to rank.

According to the policy, DH should get X/month of rent and the other employee should get Y/month.

The HR departments are saying that the policy doesn't apply AT ALL. As in to no one. But if the other guy is getting Y, shouldn't DH get X? Isn't it discriminatory allow one employee to enjoy the benefits and not another?

Discrimination on the basis of _______?

It always confuses me how people jump straight from unfair to lawsuit. There is a huge land in the middle, if he is unhappy with his contract you renegotiate it, you don't start an international multi year lawsuit without basis.

We aren't jumping directly from unfair to lawsuit. THEY WON'T GIVE HIM AN ANSWER. When we requested the most recent policy, for example, THEY WOULDN'T SEND IT TO HIM.

So if they won't answer him, and won't even give him copies of the policy (which he actually does have), what else can he do?

[madringal]

Sorry I quoted you, just deleted it.


How long have you been in the new country?

[yoyo]

Jun 25, 2012 8:32:47 GMT -5 y4m said:

Jun 25, 2012 8:31:48 GMT -5 yoyo said:

I completely understand what you're saying about how he accepted the offer, etc.

However, he was told that the policy DOES NOT apply. But as it turns out, the policy is GLOBAL. And the policy actually reads that it is HR's responsibility to ensure that it is equitably administered. It's not a perk - it's policy.

HR obviously disagrees with you on this, yeah?

They won't provide any explanation. They won't even send him the policy - he had to get it from someone else. This is my point.

[y4m]

Jun 25, 2012 8:34:34 GMT -5 yoyo said:

So if they won't answer him, and won't even give him copies of the policy (which he actually does have), what else can he do?

The advice to email both HR groups and say you aren't sure whose jurisdiction this falls under and ask for help from both is very sound. But I strongly recommend you keep the concept of discrimination far from that email, not mention the other employee, and just say that your reading of the policy is X and could they please clarify.

[Kore]

It sounds like his CW negotiated it as a perk, and isn't just automatically receiving it as a policy.

[kellbell191]

Jun 25, 2012 8:31:48 GMT -5 yoyo said:

I completely understand what you're saying about how he accepted the offer, etc.

However, he was told that the policy DOES NOT apply. But as it turns out, the policy is GLOBAL. And the policy actually reads that it is HR's responsibility to ensure that it is equitably administered. It's not a perk - it's policy.

Except he was specifically told, by HR, that it does not apply. Just because one other employee, who is higher than him, got it does not make it something he is entitled to. In the United States, there is also a huge emphasis on an individual's right to contract. If he signed a contract without rental benefits, then he might be seen as signing away any right to those benefits. Courts aren't going to come in and renegotiate his contract for him just because he isn't happy with what he got.

Not everything that is unfair is illegal.

I assume you asked here b.c. you know there are a lot of attorneys, even though you know we can't give you legal advice. And we're all sitting here scratching our heads over how or why you think this is a legal issue. So short of us giving you legal advice that should be some kind of hint.

[y4m]

How do you know this policy you got not from HR is an official and current one? How do you know it was current when DH took this job and not enacted afterward?

[yoyo]

Jun 25, 2012 8:37:19 GMT -5 y4m said:

Jun 25, 2012 8:34:34 GMT -5 yoyo said:

So if they won't answer him, and won't even give him copies of the policy (which he actually does have), what else can he do?

The advice to email both HR groups and say you aren't sure whose jurisdiction this falls under and ask for help from both is very sound. But I strongly recommend you keep the concept of discrimination far from that email, not mention the other employee, and just say that your reading of the policy is X and could they please clarify.

He's already done exactly that. And each HR say it's the other HR's problem. And nothing happens. So now what?

And FWIW, he made no mention of the other employee or use of the word discrimination. (Actually "benefits discrimination" is my terminology, because I'm not sure how else to describe it.) He basically wrote the exact email that you're describing. And made calls.

[Kore]

What does his boss say?

[yoyo]

Jun 25, 2012 8:39:44 GMT -5 y4m said:

How do you know this policy you got not from HR is an official and current one? How do you know it was current when DH took this job and not enacted afterward?

The latest policy became effective in 2008 and hasn't changed since then. He's already confirmed this. Both he and the other employee took transfers after 2008.

[y4m]

If he's not getting satisfaction from HR, his options are to suck it up or to quit. Or I guess to sue, but I think the consensus here is that will probably not work out well. Or to try to get his boss to take it up with HR, I guess.

[juris11]

The fact that this employee is higher than your H actually makes this seem more reasonable to me. I get why you are annoyed by it, but maybe it doesn't apply at your H's level, but does at the new employee's. Or maybe the other guy wouldn't take the post unless they gave him the rent, and they really wanted him there.

Either way, I don't think this is a legal issue.

[kellbell191]

So he needs to find someone else to ask.

Sorry for being short, but it makes me rage-y how many people jump straight to litigation. I don't see what's illegal here, just poor negotiating or buyer's remorse.

Does he not have a manager in your current country that he can politely ask this about? Manager in your former location? Someone higher up in HR? Whoever made him the initial offer?

I just don't see legal grounds or how getting an attorney involved is going to do anything than piss the company off and make them distrust him going forward. Is the potential future of his career at this company worth $60,000 to you guys?

[ellipses84]

Unfortunately, being a crappy employer or treating your employees unfairly is not illegal or lawsuit worthy. I know it sucks, but I don't think your DH has any recourse. He should see if any of his direct managers could help him talk to HR. He could also threaten to quit and see if they will give him the housing $ to stay, but that could backfire on him, so don't do it unless he really wants to quit.

[yoyo]

Thanks for all your input. Again, we aren't jumping from nothing to lawsuit. We haven't even called a lawyer. I'm just asking the question because I don't know what else he can do if they won't provide him with any explanation.

And a lawsuit is actually the last thing either of us wants. We're not the suing type and I can imagine that it would be emotionally draining. And burn him with this company - although he really doesn't care since this issue has left him with a bad taste.

[hannamarin]

There are 20 people with the exact same job as me.
I get paid more than all of them. Even the ones that have worked here longer. Some get more vacation. Some dont have to work weekends. Not fair? Maybe. But you get what you insist on.

[Deleted]

I would set a teleconference with the HR staff from both countries.

Then if that doesn't work, convince them to approve of you scheduling appointments with their managers.

Is your DH's manager supportive or even aware of this pursuit? I would include him/her in the HR meeting as well.

HR folks can be a bear to get into meetings (at least at my company) so he may need to be persistent.

Suing the company is not a particularly good option if he would like to remain employed.

[Deleted]

Jun 25, 2012 8:41:53 GMT -5 yoyo said:

Jun 25, 2012 8:39:44 GMT -5 y4m said:

How do you know this policy you got not from HR is an official and current one? How do you know it was current when DH took this job and not enacted afterward?

The latest policy became effective in 2008 and hasn't changed since then. He's already confirmed this. Both he and the other employee took transfers after 2008.

Things that are a company policy are usually published and distributed to all employees - these days they are usually online (either in addition to or instead of paper copies). It isn't likely a "company policy" if it is not something available for all employees to view and refer to.

Further, if it wasn't in his offer then I don't think he has a leg to stand on. It doesn't really matter what others get, it matters what he was told he'd get when he accepted the offer.

In my company some people get paid relocation, there is a policy about how this works but there is no policy that it is "required" for anyone. Some get it and some don't, and it is up to the hiring manager.

What exactly does the policy say? Are there details outlining that this is discretionary and IF this benefit is awarded, then it explains how it works?