Hellobee Boards

Nope, leave is something earned as an employee and should be paid if they use it, even if they quit during it imo. If it makes them feel any better and if policy was to repay it, I'd come back for a week and then quit.

@jedeve: ok then our company does have that policy - you are required to return for 4 weeks I believe or you have to pay it back

No, to me it is like a bonus, you earned it from time you put in.

If you use PTO as part of your leave then no, since you had accrued that through working. My company doesn't pay any STD, so I owe them nothing while being away! Even if they pay STD, I feel like it's a benefit to the employee and they shouldn't "take it back" if you quit. It's not like everyone's gonna take advantage of that and quit their job now!

I'm in Canada, and my company tops-up the government contributions so that I get my full salary for x number of weeks (not our full mat leave allowance). If I take the top-up and then then don't come back to work for at least 6 months, I have to pay it back. (I fully understand that it's a different scenario up here though.)

My maternity leave was all sick and vacation days I had accrued, so no I shouldn't have to pay that back that was time I earned. I guess it would be different if the leave was just time gifted to you by the company. I still don't agree with it, but I could understand it from a business perspective.

Mine is all my PTO, so no that is mine to keep, they give no additional paid leave. However, I personally think that they are giving you that as a gift, if you know you are going to quit or quit immediately following you should have to pay it back. They are using it as a way to retain an employee, I don't think of it as a benefit personally. I do think the policy needs to be stated in writing though and very clear to all leaving on maternity leave.

It may have to do with how they account for it in their financials. Companies have to keep a liability on their balance sheets for unused sick/vacation time because in the event that someone quits they have to pay it out and that would be a cash expense and it would be against accounting rules to not accrue for that possible expense. As for maternity/paternity leave, they don't have to accrue for it because if I quit in the middle of nowhere while not-pregnant, they wouldn't have to pay me for unused maternity/paternity leave. So, by it's very nature it is accounted for differently in a companies financial statements.

So - it is not handled the same way as vacation/sick time. That leaves it up to the company to decide how it is handled. They essentially are "taking a loss" for every day they pay you and are not getting work out of you (vs vacation days that are already built into their financials, so they've already booked that loss). So, if they want to eat the loss as a "perk" to the employees, that's their choice. If they've decided that is too expensive for them, they can adjust their policy.

If we had federal laws about maternity/paternity leave in the US, this would not be the case and the leave would be accounted for differently on the books and wouldn't be up to the companies to decide.

Yes, I think you should have to return it, unless it’s only your PTO/vacation time that you are using. Paid parental leave is for a specific purpose; to provide you payment for a time that you’re out of work with the intent that you will return to work. I think it definitely has strings-attached, like tuition-assistance and plenty of other employer-paid benefits.

Same with companies that continue to pay health insurance and other insurance premiums while you’re out on FMLA leave; that’s a financial benefit to their employee (you) with the understanding that you will return to work.

The whole concept of STD is to provide a safety net to cover your basic expenses while you concentrate on getting better so you can get back to work; not to ease a transition into SAH. There are “return to work” programs and incentives for both STD and LTD. I don’t see any of that as “free” money.

Probably not a popular opinion!

@yoursilverlining: totally agree. It's not like PTO that you accrue personally, I see it as good faith money to tide you over until you come back. I see it as a benefit to remain an employee.

@yoursilverlining: I agree with this and I think you gave some really good examples that are similar benefits that typically have contractual terms on the back-end.

I think the flaw from how OP stated the scenario is that the company wasn't explicit in their expectations. I think their expectations are reasonable, they just failed to document such. And it's a good thing they now realize this and are making the policy clear for future employees.

I know that I've been on the receiving end of tuition reimbursements and relocation agreements, both had very explicit terms for my performance post benefit (2 years in both cases, actually) or repayment was required.

@yoursilverlining: Do you think you should have to return it even if the company doesn't say you need to?

I asked in a roundabout fashion - I think I said, "I intend on coming back" (lie) "but if something were to happen where I need to resign, will that affect my maternity leave benefits at all?" Their response: "Well, of course, please tell us as soon as you decide, but no, we've never asked anyone to pay us back."

In that scenario, why would I have told them as soon as I'd made my decision and forfeit all that pay, when they told me I can keep it if I don't?

I think it's up to the company to set expectations and communicate.

@yoursilverlining: For DH, if you don't come back after your sabbatical (which is paid at 80%), you are required to repay it.

I also think that as long as it's something you're not paying into (e.g., STD, sick leave, PTO, etc.) i am okay with a policy that it has to be repaid. But it has to be clear to the employee beforehand that they would have to repay it.

@jedeve: I think it's dumb that they're only telling you now that you have to repay that amount (when it wasn't explicit in their policies before your case). I don't agree with that.

@daniellemybelle: I definitely agree that a company should clearly communicate their policy, whatever their stance is.

Your specific question is different from the general one in the OP; and I don’t think you should “have” to pay back anything a company has clearly said you don’t have to pay back (because then they’ve set a policy, although obviously a clear written one is much better). Personally, I do think it’s disingenuous to accept benefits directly tied to your continued employment and which you know are intended for a specific purpose (short duration of leave, before returning to work) when you know you do not intend to return to work before you go out on leave. I also think most employers won’t ask for that money back though.

My opinion is that (in the absence of a policy/communication stating you can keep the benefits if you don’t return to work), if you quit while out on leave, you should have to pay those benefits back.

Does this make sense? I'm getting tired over here, been a long day

@yoursilverlining: You are making sense. Where I disagree with you is if the company is not clear that they will want the compensation back in the event you don't return, I don't think it is fair for them to ask for it after you quit. If they are upfront, then that's fine, I don't think its WRONG for them to set that policy, but I do think the impetus is on them to be clear if that's their position. As an employee, I feel like I earn my benefits and they are mine to take unless I hear otherwise!

Is it not a similar situation when someone has accrued vacation time and uses it at the end of their tenure at a job to basically quit and then still get paid for a while? Isn't vacation time also a benefit to reward employees for loyalty and to give them temporary leave from their job, in order to get R&R and return?

@PawPrints:Just to clarify, in Canada, companies do not pay for maternity leave. The government does. All companies are required to do is hold a position (does not have to be the same position that the employee left) for up to 52 weeks.

In my city, a lot of companies top up the maternity leave benefits that are received from the government. This IS used as a dangling carrot for the employee to return and in most companies, it is required to be paid back if you don't return to your position.

@jedeve: So wait, you get paid out your sick leave when you quit, but essentially you don't get it paid out (because you have to pay it back) if you quit after maternity leave?

You should tell your boss to talk to an HR professional or a lawyer about that because that sounds illegal. You either pay out sick leave when people quit or you don't. And some states require that you pay it out while others leave it up to the company.

I know this isn't totally the poit of the original question, but to those who say you shouldn't say you are planing to come back when you are realy planning to quit- what if you are truthful and say you are not coming back, and something happens? The baby has some extremely expensive medical needs, your so loses his job, or something even worse? Then what would you do, you already quit?

Disclaimer: I acted like I was coming back even though I planned to be a sahm. I told my boss as soon as the paid portion of my leave was up so she would have more time to recruit someone new while my mat cover was still there. Doing so, I did miss out on another month of company paid benefits. I don't feel bad about it.

@jedeve: this sick leave fund thing is news to me...how exactly does that work?

my employer pays all of our STD and LTD benefits - no cost sharing there. I don't have sick days, just PTO.