Check out some similar questions!

dbrmckeever · May 13, 2014, 10:27 AM

Canadian Labour Law
I am looking for a 'quotable' law/statute that states that an employer cannot coerce, imply, demand, request that an employee do work that is contrary to legislated acts (specifically the Income Tax Act).

The person I'm asking for has been over a few years 'goaded' into calculating payroll contrary to CCP, E.I. and Taxable Benefits regulations and, upon refusing to continue to do so, has been dismissed. She is in a union position and the union won't even take a stand on this particular issue (because it is not directly stated in the collective agreement). My argument is that this is basic employer/employee law and therefore need not be directly stated, but it is a fact of the case.

I would like to quote the specific statute to convince the union to argue this point.

AK lawyer · May 13, 2014, 10:45 AM

This is where you might start.

CCP, E.I. and Taxable Benefits regulations

You are in the US, right? And what state, by-the-way?

dbrmckeever · May 13, 2014, 10:54 AM

Ohhhh... I'm sorry!This is Canadian Law... I'll edit my question.

AK lawyer · May 13, 2014, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by dbrmckeever

Ohhhh... I'm sorry!This is Canadian Law... I'll edit my question.

Ah, your phraseology gave me a hunch that you might be in another country. I don't have very extensive links for Canadian statutory law, so I probably can't help you there.

joypulv · May 13, 2014, 11:04 AM

I don't get the question. If calculating payroll isn't in her job description, why isn't her union standing behind her? What is her job description? I hope this isn't what it sounds like; she doesn't believe in income tax...

tickle · May 13, 2014, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by joypulv

I don't get the question. If calculating payroll isn't in her job description, why isn't her union standing behind her? What is her job description? I hope this isn't what it sounds like; she doesn't believe in income tax...

No. OP isn't saying that she does not believe in income tax; it is that she has been asked to calculate income tax payroll deductions contrary to government regulations.

The clauses he wants to cite will be difficult to find. It won't be under labour laws.

aliseaodo · May 13, 2014, 12:12 PM

What about here?
T4001 - Employers' Guide - Payroll Deductions and Remittances

dbrmckeever · May 13, 2014, 12:31 PM

Thank you, but we know all about what the regulations and compliance for the tax regulations are; we need the statute that states, "that it is wrong (illegal?) to require employees to do work that is contrary to ANY statute, law, legislation, etc."

For example, an employer who employs someone to deliver office supplies; then sometime later, requires that employee to deliver and collect payment for cocaine, would be breaking a 'law' to require his employee to break the law in the performance of his job.

tickle · May 13, 2014, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by aliseaodo

What about here?
T4001 - Employers' Guide - Payroll Deductions and Remittances

All CDN employers have this. It is a standard guide that all CDN employers have use to make the proper payroll deductions on pay scales.

Originally Posted by dbrmckeever

Thank you, but we know all about what the regulations and compliance for the tax regulations are; we need the statute that states, "that it is wrong (illegal?) to require employees to do work that is contrary to ANY statute, law, legislation, etc."

For example, an employer who employs someone to deliver office supplies; then sometime later, requires that employee to deliver and collect payment for cocaine, would be breaking a 'law' to require his employee to break the law in the performance of his job.

You are on an international site here, most are not conversant in Canadian law. Someone has to search for this info the same way you would have to. Be patient we are all volunteers. You don't have to spell it out.

I am Canadian and would have a tough time finding this clause for you. We can only search on line.

odinn7 · May 13, 2014, 12:48 PM

I'm no lawyer and I have no legal advice for this thread but after reading it, something just doesn't seem right to me. I don't know why you would need to spell out anywhere that an employee cannot be required to do something illegal. I mean, you are trying to find something that specifically says that but wouldn't that just be assumed as common knowledge or practice? If I worked for someone and they wanted me to rob a bank for them, I wouldn't be required to do that because it is illegal to do so...even though it doesn't specifically say this in a labor agreement. Just makes no sense to me.

talaniman · May 13, 2014, 12:52 PM

Would help if we knew specifically what the illegal thing she was asked to do was. Illegal stuff is for the law, not the union.

tickle · May 13, 2014, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Would help if we knew specifically what the illegal thing she was asked to do was.

She was asked by her employers to make employee payroll deductions for income tax, etc, not according to government guidelines. That is the way I read the original post. To do so is illegal.

talaniman · May 13, 2014, 01:21 PM

Without being specific we cannot know how accurate that premise is. This is more an issue for the government than a union, as how would a lay man in a union know tax law? At the very least a corporate tax lawyer to verify whether what the company is instructing her to do is indeed illegal.

Better yet a complaint to the Canadian version of the Attorney General would be a better venue to pursue if this is beyond Canadian tax law or not. First the instruction must be deemed illegal, and thats subject for debate without specifics. If they have the calculus they can submit it, but you cannot just holler a procedure is illegal when you refuse to follow it without having for fact it is.

Therein lies the problem, union or not, no specifics so how do we tell what statute if any applies? Impossible. This is clearly a case for a government tax lawyer to review, not a union rep.

dbrmckeever · May 13, 2014, 01:36 PM

No worries... just hoping to find something 'official'

AK lawyer · May 13, 2014, 02:07 PM

I think the OP wants authority saying that an employee cannot be disciplined for refusing to help an employer to cheat on taxes (or to knowingly do them incorrectly).

On the other hand, if it is a matter of mere disagreement about how to properly report taxes, the employee should defer to the employer's judgment.

tickle · May 13, 2014, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Without being specific we cannot know how accurate that premise is. This is more an issue for the government than a union, as how would a lay man in a union know tax law? At the very least a corporate tax lawyer to verify whether what the company is instructing her to do is indeed illegal.

Better yet a complaint to the Canadian version of the Attorney General would be a better venue to pursue if this is beyond Canadian tax law or not. First the instruction must be deemed illegal, and thats subject for debate without specifics. If they have the calculus they can submit it, but you cannot just holler a procedure is illegal when you refuse to follow it without having for fact it is.

Therein lies the problem, union or not, no specifics so how do we tell what statute if any applies? Impossible. This is clearly a case for a government tax lawyer to review, not a union rep.

Any reporting of improper procedures for payroll deductions should be sent to 'Payroll-Canada Revenue Agency'. Website and pertinent informaton is here:
Payroll

ScottGem · May 13, 2014, 04:16 PM

I agree with odinn. I doubt if you will find a specific statute that states an employer cannot require an employee to commit an illegal act. I think it would just be a given. If you are trying to protect this employee from being terminated for refusal to do so, you will have a hard time proven that was the reason for termination.

I think you need to consult an attorney about this.

dbrmckeever · May 13, 2014, 09:39 PM

Thanks a million folks... from reading the varied replies, I think I've been approaching this all wrong (hints were in the replies!).

The employer-employee relationship falls under contract law in Canada, with a number of 'acts' that dictate conditions in the workplace (Worker's Compensation, Health and Safety, etc.).
So, the courts would likely view a case like this as an 'illegal contract' (after the contract was formed); however, since the illegal acts are purely one-sided and a fundamental change in the conditions of the [employment] contract and without consideration, the courts would likely find that portion of the contract void.

No wonder the union won't touch it!

Is it ever NICE to have a bunch of sharp folks to bounce this off!

Fr_Chuck · May 14, 2014, 01:52 AM

Like many issues, this is going to be more an issue of case law, where companies have been sued and prior courts have ruled.

It is also, a somewhat obvious issue, since a person can not perform actions that are illegal.

If the issue is an opinion of which is proper method, but if income, assets are being hidden, either government or employee is being cheated.

The person needs to file giievence with the unioin. Also, they need to have the orders to do the job a certain way in writing. So there is proof. In the end, the employee is the one, who can get fined or even go to jail for illegal acts. Even with written orders, since they know.

Also, they merely refuse to do it that way, and if company issues warning, the union should protect them