15

Recently I signed a contract with a new company.

The recruiter told me that the firm would offer a relocation package when I had signed the contract.

I believed him, signed the contract only to receive a call from HR and CEO asking why I would come back to them asking for a relocation package after the contract was signed. They told me they never offer any relocation packages.

Luckily I had the email from the recruiter which I forwarded to the HR person.

Clearly I am now worried that my reputation is already damaged with the company and I am wondering how to proceed.

I have two issues: One my name associated with this unprofessional behaviour, two I want the relocation package I was offered.

How do you suggest I proceed?

  • 11
    ... Next time sort out these details BEFORE you sign the contract. – geekrunner May 1 '14 at 2:48
  • 1
    Thanks guys for the comments. I do agree that I should have had it in writing from the company itself. I do know that recruiters usually have a dubious morale, but I did not see this coming. Lesson learned. – user19170 May 1 '14 at 12:58
24

You just proved to the company that your conduct was above board. Not so for the recruiter, who is going to have to sort it out with the company. Let's see what happens next. Chances are pretty good that the company will stick to its policy of not offering relocation packages and it can justifiably argue that it cannot be bound to a representation by a third party, a representation that the third party conjured out of its lively imagination. Most likely, your relocation package is going to come out of the recruiter's pocket. Don't feel sorry for him.

The recruiter could refuse to pay up. But then, he has to weigh the con of losing the company as a client, the possibility of getting fired by his management for losing the company as a client - unless the recruiter owns the recruiting firm, that is - and the con of parting with the money to pay for your relocation package. No pressure :)

Of course, you are no fool, you are not going to take his word that he is going to pay you the relocation package AFTER he gets the money from the company. Right? :) Insist on "Show me the money". Up front.

Post-note from user19170: "So the company got back to me and said they did not think I was being unprofessional. That is a relief. Secondly, they are paying my relocation costs. Sadly, I do not know what happens to the recruiter, but a good guess he is no longer associated with my new employer."

OK, the recruiter had a bad day at the office - he'll live :) There are plenty of other parts in the world where he would have lost a few body parts if not his life for his stunt. And hopefully, going forward, he learns to curb his enthusiasm for making up stories.

Back to the important stuff: you've got (1) the offer and (2) the relocation package. Well done :)

  • It seems the simplest thing for the company to do would be to 1) not pay the recruiter his normal fee on the basis that he acted inappropriately and then 2) give that money to the OP as the "relocation package". – aroth May 1 '14 at 5:15
  • @aroth True, but your proposed action could be seen from inside the company's hierarchy as a break from its policy of not giving out relocation packages. Another problem that I see is that recruiters don't get paid right away - There is a period of say three months before the company decides that the candidate is working out, and the company pays the fee. Needless to say, the candidate needs the relocation package now not three months from now. And the final consideration is that the company might take exception to solving a problem that it did not create. Let's see what happens next :) – Vietnhi Phuvan May 1 '14 at 5:36
  • 2
    So the company got back to me and said they did not think I was being unprofessional. That is a relief. Secondly, they are paying my relocation costs. Sadly, I do not know what happens to the recruiter, but a good guess he is no longer associated with my new employer. – user19170 May 1 '14 at 15:43
1

In some countries (the countries in Scandinavia for example) the company would be bound by law to pay the fee. Why? Because you can assume that the recruiter is acting on behalf off the firm. So the firm would have to pay what the recruiter promised, and the firm & recruiter would have to sort it out between the two of them.

So, in your position it is more reasonable to expect the firm to pay, since that was what you where promised.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .