Should I reimburse my relocation allowance?

Hi all,

I hope someone can help with an employment related issue.

I was transferred to Hong-Kong by my employer last summer, which assisted with the cost of the relocation by giving me a lump sum equal to one month salary. My contract states that the relocation allowance is tied to a one-year binding term.

The role is not a good fit and I am looking to resign but haven't served the one-year term yet (I still have four months to go).

So my question is: if I resign now, am I liable to repay the relocation allowance in full or only a pro-rated amount? Nowhere on the contract is there any detail about the repayment of relocation allowance. I also checked other company policy documents (employee handbook, etc.) but no reference to this at all.

Is there any general rule that governs this type of clause when no detail is provided on the contract itself?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Usually for first year it's in full and not pro-rated. Mine stipulated full for first year and pro-rated for second.

How does the contract read? For a typical professional person like yourself, does it read and create a fair expectation of full or pro-rated? Best to take your contract to a legal profession for a second opinion.

If your boss is nice (and senior) enough and you can persuade him/her that your "expectation" is pro-rated upon reading the ambiguous clause, it's best to get him/her to bat for you with HR.