|
I signed a contract approx 3 years ago to go OCONUS(overseas) to work for my
company. Upon completing 36mos I was to be eligible for relocation expenses
back to continental US(when ever I decide to return). During this time I
have worked a few different locations, all OCONUS for the same company. Now,
I have to sign a new contract which has my 3yr counter starting with my
latest assignment(way less than 3 yrs) instead of my full time overseas.
I've brought this issue up but my local managers say it's correct. I have to
sign this today or I wont have a job. Is there something I could also sign
and have notarized before hand, stating that the only reason I'm agreeing to
this is to keep my job?
Me and others feel my company has ulterior motives for doing this. The new
contract cuts our wages and by doing this, several employees will be forced
to stay, whereas they would have been able to relocate back stateside.
|
| |
| |
I signed a contract approx 3 years ago to go OCONUS(overseas) to
work for my
company. Upon completing 36mos I was to be eligible for relocation
expenses
back to continental US(when ever I decide to return). During this
time I
have worked a few different locations, all OCONUS for the same
company. Now,
I have to sign a new contract which has my 3yr counter starting with
my
latest assignment(way less than 3 yrs) instead of my full time
overseas.
I've brought this issue up but my local managers say it's correct. I
have to
sign this today or I wont have a job. Is there something I could
also sign
and have notarized before hand, stating that the only reason I'm
agreeing to
this is to keep my job?
Me and others feel my company has ulterior motives for doing this.
The new
contract cuts our wages and by doing this, several employees will be
forced
to stay, whereas they would have been able to relocate back
stateside.
If you want to, you could sign the new contract and send it to the
company with a letter stating that the only reason you are signing is
to keep the job. I don't know of any good reason to establish this.
The fact that you said it in the letter, even if it's notarized,
doesn't make your statement true. And that statement of your intent
doesn't establish duress. There is probably no duress in this case.
If the company has the right to fire you because the employment is at
will, then they have the right to offer you a new deal, and fire you
if you don't take it. The consideration for your agreement to the
change is that they refrain from firing you.
But there is an interesting wrinkle in this case. They are not only
changing the deal for the future, they are taking back an accrued
benefit. If you signed the original contract three or more years ago,
your option would be to refuse to sign the new contract, get fired,
get all relocation expenses reimbursed because that's the contract,
and sue them for breach if they won't pay. Then find a new job, or
apply with the same company for a job using their new contract. If
you signed the original contract less than three years ago, and you
refuse to sign the new contract and get fired, your claim against the
company would be wrongful termination based on their motivation of
avoiding liability for the relocation expenses. We learned this
lesson in regard to vesting of pension benefits. It's not legal to
fire an employee 5 days before the employee would have become vested
in the retirement plan, if that's the employer's only motivation.
If you sign the new contract, I think you will be pretty much sunk as
far as the relocation benefit is concerned.
McGyver
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:12:48 -0700 McGyver <Greyprof@msn.com> whittled these words:
But there is an interesting wrinkle in this case. They are not only
changing the deal for the future, they are taking back an accrued
benefit. If you signed the original contract three or more years ago,
your option would be to refuse to sign the new contract, get fired,
get all relocation expenses reimbursed because that's the contract,
and sue them for breach if they won't pay. Then find a new job, or
I would more than hesitate to reach the advise that the remedy is limited
to those whose time has run when I haven't read the actual contract.
apply with the same company for a job using their new contract. If
you signed the original contract less than three years ago, and you
refuse to sign the new contract and get fired, your claim against the
company would be wrongful termination based on their motivation of
avoiding liability for the relocation expenses. We learned this
lesson in regard to vesting of pension benefits. It's not legal to
fire an employee 5 days before the employee would have become vested
in the retirement plan, if that's the employer's only motivation.
Yes
If you sign the new contract, I think you will be pretty much sunk as
far as the relocation benefit is concerned.
Could be, but I'm not convinced of this either. The OP is ready, willing
and able (apparently) to perform on the original contract. I don't know
that the OP actually has to refuse to sign and be fired to have a case.
Yes, the case is better without signing, but I'd want to compare the old
and new terms and the circumstances before advising. Without seeing the
contract terms (and this should be done in private with an attorney) its
difficult to know what advice to give. Overall it seems the lowest
economic risk, given the short time frame, is to sign the new contract
then take the whole mess to an attorney for review. My guess is there
will be grounds for discussion and negotiation. The burden of reliance
on the part of the employees is too great otherwise. This isn't like a
pension plan. In this case employees have changed their position for the
worse (temporarily) on the promise of future compensation for that change
in position.
--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dogplay.com/Shop/
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:12:48 -0700 McGyver <Greyprof@msn.com>
whittled these words:
I would more than hesitate to reach the advise that the remedy is
limited
to those whose time has run when I haven't read the actual contract.
Yes
Could be, but I'm not convinced of this either. The OP is ready,
willing
and able (apparently) to perform on the original contract. I don't
know
that the OP actually has to refuse to sign and be fired to have a
case.
Yes, the case is better without signing, but I'd want to compare the
old
and new terms and the circumstances before advising. Without seeing
the
contract terms (and this should be done in private with an attorney)
its
difficult to know what advice to give. Overall it seems the lowest
economic risk, given the short time frame, is to sign the new
contract
then take the whole mess to an attorney for review. My guess is
there
will be grounds for discussion and negotiation. The burden of
reliance
on the part of the employees is too great otherwise. This isn't
like a
pension plan. In this case employees have changed their position
for the
worse (temporarily) on the promise of future compensation for that
change
in position.
General rule:
Discussing a contract with an attorney before signing is better than
discussing it after.
McGyver
|
| |
| |
"j" <sniffinpoprocksReMoVe@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4dPDc.7565217$iA2.856207@news.easynews.com>...
I signed a contract approx 3 years ago to go OCONUS(overseas) to work for my
company. Upon completing 36mos I was to be eligible for relocation expenses
back to continental US(when ever I decide to return). During this time I
have worked a few different locations, all OCONUS for the same company. Now,
I have to sign a new contract which has my 3yr counter starting with my
latest assignment(way less than 3 yrs) instead of my full time overseas.
I've brought this issue up but my local managers say it's correct. I have to
sign this today or I wont have a job. Is there something I could also sign
and have notarized before hand, stating that the only reason I'm agreeing to
this is to keep my job?
Me and others feel my company has ulterior motives for doing this. The new
contract cuts our wages and by doing this, several employees will be forced
to stay, whereas they would have been able to relocate back stateside.
There are at least two questions I can identify in your situation. One
is whether the company had the right to demand that you agree to the
change in contract in exchange for keeping your job. Another is
whether your assent to the contract is genuine. I'll deal with the
latter for now. Just remember that I'm not a lawyer, and my opinion is
worth no more than what you didn't pay for it.
Contracts signed under duress are voidable; if you could prove duress,
you could argue that your employer should not be allowed to enforce
the new contract, but rather should remain bound by the old one. But
what constitutes duress, especially when the other party's threat is
economic rather than physical, is very much open to argument.
Courts have become increasingly open to arguments that economic
compulsion is a form of duress. The compulsion has to be forceful
enough and outrageous enough that there is no way you would have made
such an agreement except that you were compelled to do so.
If your situation is something like the following, you might have a
reasonable claim for duress: Having relied on your employer's promise
to relocate you back to the US after a 3-year contract, you relocated.
Now you are confronted with a choice between agreeing to an unfair
contract and being stranded in a foreign country without employment,
without a valid visa, and without resources to return to the US. That
would leave you with no real alternative to signing.
On the other hand, if your situation is such that you could find other
work where you are, or return to the US on your own resources, without
catastrophic personal or financial hardship, then you have a realistic
(even though disadvantageous) alternative to signing, and even though
you signed under economic pressure, that pressure would fall short of
duress.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
If your situation is something like the following, you might have a
reasonable claim for duress: Having relied on your employer's promise
to relocate you back to the US after a 3-year contract, you relocated.
Now you are confronted with a choice between agreeing to an unfair
contract and being stranded in a foreign country without employment,
without a valid visa, and without resources to return to the US. That
would leave you with no real alternative to signing.
That is exactly the boat several of us have been put in!
I guess our next step is to seek a lawyer who deals with employment issues.
Should one person/firm represent all employees?
Thanks to all for the advice!!
|
| |
| |
"j" <sniffinpoprocksReMoVe@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<OO7Ec.18514560$Id.3051874@news.easynews.com>...
If your situation is something like the following, you might have a
reasonable claim for duress: Having relied on your employer's promise
to relocate you back to the US after a 3-year contract, you relocated.
Now you are confronted with a choice between agreeing to an unfair
contract and being stranded in a foreign country without employment,
without a valid visa, and without resources to return to the US. That
would leave you with no real alternative to signing.
That is exactly the boat several of us have been put in!
I guess our next step is to seek a lawyer who deals with employment issues.
Should one person/firm represent all employees?
That's the way I'd approach it if I were in your shoes. Saves on
having to bring several different lawyers up to speed on the same
situation (and ending up with as many different proposed courses of
action as there are lawyers).
Then take your lawyer's advice, but if you have the luxury of not
being in the position of "sign today, or your visa revocation goes in
the same day", I might approach it by refusing to sign and at the same
time getting your lawyer to deliver a letter demanding that the
company uphold the previous agreement. As McGyver mentioned, it's much
harder to get out of an unconscionable contract you already signed
than it is to avoid it by not signing in the first place.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
|
