The legislation is not consistent in when the legal sanctions for work are applied to the company and when to the employees.
The Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) issued a decision in December, according to which the employee has received a taxable benefit that can be read as salary, when the employer has paid court costs on behalf of the employee in a work-related criminal case. The decision concerned the editor of Helsingin Sanomat, but many other than representatives of the media can find themselves in a similar situation because of their work.
The core of the Supreme Court's decision is summed up – even a little spiky – in the reasoning that the employee's duties did not include being a defendant in a criminal trial. In practice, however, the circumstances on the basis of which suspected crimes in various areas of working life end up being processed in the courts are diverse.
In criminal law it is a principle that various illegal acts should be made punishable only if there are no other, milder means available to intervene in the reprehensible activity. The practice is often different. Especially in industry-specific laws, it is easy to make every type of violation of the law punishable.
In general, the legislation is not consistent in when legal sanctions are applied to the company and when to those who acted on its behalf. For example, cartels are very harmful for the overall good of society, but participating in a cartel is not a crime. The field of criminal liability has also been narrowed in the case of data protection violations and the focus has been on sanctions imposed on companies.
Some crimes require intent, some are just careless. An employee may try to do his job conscientiously, but he may miss a duty, the neglect of which is also punishable by negligence. A crime committed out of carelessness is not as reprehensible as an intentional one, but the trial can be expensive.
Employer's interest varies in different crime types. Sometimes the only damage is related to the company's reputation, but other times the employer may be liable for substantial damages. For example, in environmental crimes, the company can also be threatened with a severe loss of criminal proceeds. Some crimes carry the possibility of a community fine.
Labor legislation aims to protect the weaker party of the employment relationship, the employee. In the law of damages, it appears that if an employee causes damage to an outsider during his work, the employer pays compensation based on the employer's liability. The employee may also have to compensate for at least part of the damage. What matters is the degree of negligence.
“
In the current situation, the matter can only be corrected by changing the law.
According to the Supreme Court's policy, legal costs in a criminal case are not tax-free expenses that are immediately incurred by performing the work, even if the employee is ultimately found to be innocent.
The harsh interpretation of tax laws to the detriment of the employee deepens the problem of ever-increasing court costs. Even a middle-income person may not have the conditions to bear the costs of a large-scale lawsuit. This is a problem in private life legal cases, but the disadvantage is accentuated if personal finances are ruined as a result of work-related litigation.
The employee the vulnerable position can affect the way the other parties make accusations not only against the company but also against its employees. If it is known that the employer's conditions for organizing an effective defense for the employee are weak, it is easier to pressure the employee inappropriately.
The wording of the tax laws would have made it possible to interpret the tax treatment of court costs paid on behalf of the employee differently than the Supreme Court did. In the current situation, the matter can only be corrected by changing the law.
In tax laws, it is important to take into account how employees are protected in other legislation. The presumption of innocence must also be remembered. Regardless of the outcome of the legal process, the legal costs paid by the employer should be considered contingency-free expenses incurred directly from the performance of the work.
Klaus Nyblin is a lawyer.
Guest pens are speeches by experts that have been selected by the editorial board of HS to be published. The opinions expressed in guest pens are the authors' own views, not HS's positions. Writing instructions: www.hs.fi/vieraskyna/.
#Guest #pen #conscientious #employee #protected #risk #criminal #liability
