Multiple relocation packages?

[Mattt]

Employee was given a relocation package upon joining, with a clawback mechanism over 2 years if they resign.

6 months into the job, they are required to move again and given a relocation package with a clawback period over 1 year if they resign.

Does relocation package 2 negate the provisions of clawback for relocation package 1?

ETA: Relocation package 2 letter states 'all other T&Cs remain the same', however it seems unreasonable to expect repayment of expenses for a location that they were subsequently moved from.

Edited by Mattt on Monday 18th February 05:59

[bint]

Package 2 should negate the prior one yes. But they should confirm with their business to be sure.

[WhereamI]

No, unless it specifically says so (and it seems to specifically say that it doesn't impact on previous conditions) then both clauses remain in effect. There is no basis for saying that by virtue of agreeing to the second it automatically negates the first.

[rog007]

It would seem 'reasonable' that the demand for another move would negate the initial contract in terms of clawback clauses. This and the time limit can be negotiated by the subject based upon what would be 'reasonable' based upon a number of factors, the key one being the value of the relocation package in relation to the overall remuneration deal. On average, 1-2 years is the norm. Note however that a signature would normally be required before any package is paid. Good luck!

[WhereamI]

rog007 said:

It would seem 'reasonable' that the demand for another move would negate the initial contract in terms of clawback clauses. This and the time limit can be negotiated by the subject based upon what would be 'reasonable' based upon a number of factors, the key one being the value of the relocation package in relation to the overall remuneration deal. On average, 1-2 years is the norm. Note however that a signature would normally be required before any package is paid. Good luck!

It is certainly something that could be negotiated, but by default there is nothing to say that the first would be negated by the second, it would be reasonable to negotiate that but you can't assume it.