The policy says that "this is the policy for international transfers." The benefit amounts vary by rank, but the benefits are the same for each employee. It does not say that it is discretionary - it simply provides guidelines for what a transferred employee should get.
I assume you mean something like, rent is paid for every employee, but rank determines how much money the company will cover and the higher up you go, the higher your rent allowance? That's the only way your comment makes sense to me.
Because otherwise I don't see how the benefit is the same, yet some people get more. 2 weeks vacation is not 4 weeks vacation - I would not say the benefit is the same just because everyone is getting some vacation.
I think what you are saying happened is that they lied to him about the policy when they transferred him, then he found out about the other employee, got a hold of the policy, and then found out that the policy is not being applied to his situation since he should be getting something according to the policy?
If this is the case, I am understanding why you are more upset about this. All you can do is be more pushy to get an answer with HR. The second you accuse them of lying, your husband's time there is probably numbered.
I hope he's looking for another job already; it sounds like he will either say nothing and be unhappy and resentful, or do something and piss off the employer. Sounds like a bad situation overall.
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. The policy says that every transferred employee gets SOME AMOUNT. The actual amount depends on rank.
They lied about the policy applying to the new country. Now he knows that was a lie, and they are giving him the runaround - they won't even forward him the policy, for example. He had to get it from another employee.
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?
The policy says that "this is the policy for international transfers." The benefit amounts vary by rank, but the benefits are the same for each employee. It does not say that it is discretionary - it simply provides guidelines for what a transferred employee should get.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.