Memorandum of Legal proportions

The issue at hand right now is the termination of the employment of Mr. Brown. Based on the laws and regulations set in place by Revelstoke hardware, there was a breach of the regulations of safety. The violation of the contract was not carried out by Mr. Brown, but by Mr. Achebe and MR. Moran. The issue involves Mr. Brown’s concern of making sure that Mr. Achebe would get the opportunity to attend the training session. He chipped in that the trainer would be available to Mr. Achebe at his office after the training. This would give Mr. Achebe a chance to get an equal amount of training as the other employees, giving him an equal opportunity. However, Mr. Achebe and Mr. Moran decided to use an order picker to lift Mr. Achebe to the second floor for the training. This constituted the violation of the safety rules and regulation set by the company, which had been previously signed by Mr. Brown during the time of his employment. The issue is, therefore, concerned with the dismissal of Mr. Brown from his employment due to unauthorized use of equipment by the employees. Based on the facts and analysis of the case, the termination of his employment could either be justified or termed as unjust since he was not directly involved in the breach of the rules and regulations.

Brief Answer

According to the Canada laws of termination of employment, the notice and termination of pay requirements do not apply when an employee is guilty of willful misconduct (Griffith & Macartney, 2014). This means that in the case of Mr. Brown, he was guilty of willful neglect of duty, which was not condoned by the company.

Mr. Brown takes responsibility of all the employees that are under his supervision and thus he wanted to ensure that Mr. Achebe had an equal chance to attend the training. He, therefore, recommended that Ms. Virk, one of the attendees would train Mr. Achebe on the first floor after Virk was trained at the seminar. However, Mr. Achebe was determined to attend the training on the second floor. Mr. Achebe and Mr. Moran suggested to Mr. Brown about the use of the order picker to allow Achebe attend the seminar. Mr. Brown reminded them of his plan to have Ms. Virk train Mr. Achebe. He tried to express his discomfort with their idea and expected them to understand the dangers involved and thus not carry on with the plan.

Due to his position in the work place, he is tasked with many responsibilities one of them being foreseeing the success of the ladies night which was held by the company. He was quickly whisked away before he completed the conversation with Mr. Achebe and Mr. Moran. He, therefore, did not have time to give them his final decision concerning the idea.

Mr. Achebe and Mr. Moran went ahead with their plan on the day of the seminar. Mr. Moran made the forklift available while Mr. Achebe provided the ramp despite being warned by Mr. Atleo. When asked by Mr. Atleo, Mr. Moran claimed to have acquired permission from Mr. Brown to perform the lifting. Mr. Moran further could have breached the laws on machine operation since there is no evidence of him wearing the operator safety gear when performing the lifting.

Mr. Brown was not present when the lifting took place since his shift started at 10.00 am. After the seminar, Mr. Achebe descended using the order picker with the help of Mr. Moran. They did not secure the wheelchair on the skid and relied on its breaks. This was against the rules of machine operation in addition to putting Mr. Achebe in danger.

Therefore, Mr. Achebe and Mr. Moran went against the rules by using the order picker forklift to get Mr. Achebe to the second floor. Mr. Brown being the assistant manager failed to stop them since he had not started his shift and later during the afternoon, he was busy in a meeting. There was a breach of contract concerning the safety rules of the company by all the employees involved.Mr. Achebe, Mr. Moran, and Mr. Brown were all at fault and measures had to be taken by the company.

Facts

The cause of the dismissal of Mr. Brown by Revelstoke Hardware was based on the rules and regulations set by the company concerning workplace safety. Rule 7 states that all safety guards are required to be in place before any machinery or equipment can be operated. This law was breached when Mr. Moran decided to lift Mr. Achebe to the second floor so he could attend the training. The safety guards were not present during the lifting, and Mr. Moran was not wearing any safety gear, which warrants the case for their dismissal.

Rule 24 states that no riders are permitted on forklifts and tractors. This is the law that warranted for the action taken by the company. Mr. Achebe and Mr. Moran went against the law by allowing Mr. Achebe to ride on the forklift. The forklifts and tractors are only meant for the handling of goods within the company.

Rule 5 states that failure to operate power equipment safely warrants immediate dismissal. Mr. Moran broke rule 5 by operating the power equipment without safety gear. Further, they did not fasten Mr. Achebe’s wheel chair during the descent, putting him in danger.

Rule 14 states that any deliberate act which might endanger the safety or the life of others warrants immediate dismissal. Mr. Moran acted against the law by operating the order picker to lift Mr. Achebe to the second floor and descend him to the first floor. He did not fasten Mr. Achebe’s wheelchair during the descend, putting Mr. Achebe’s life in danger willfully.

According to Revelstoke hardware’s guidelines on conducts on the job, the use of power equipment and riding on any moving equipment by any unauthorized employee is cause for immediate dismissal. Mr.Moran broke this rule by using the order picker to elevate Mr. Achebe to the second floor thus making him a hitchhiker. Based on the warning given by Mr. Atleo to Mr. Moran, he was evidently an unauthorized person to operate a power equipment.

Despite the warning by Mr. Atleo and the discomfort expressed by Mr. Brown about the idea of using the order picker to elevate Mr. Achebe to the training seminar on the second floor, Mr. Moran ignored this warning and chose to execute the plan with Mr. Achebe’s approval. Mr. Moran failed to convey the concerns of Mr. Atleo to Mr.Achebe after he came back from retrieving the ramp, which elaborated Mr. Atleo’s concerns on the safety of the operation.

Mr. Brown failed to complete his recommendations regarding the idea presented by both Mr. Moran and his counterpart Mr. Achebe irrespective of his many responsibilities during that evening. This left Mr. Moran and Mr. Achebe to make a self-centered assumption on the approval of the plan. Mr. Brown failed to show signs of concern or express any form of punishment after Mr. Achebe informed him about the execution of the plan that he had earlier on refused to ascend him to the second floor for the training. Mr. Brown being the manager, had the power and authority to prevent a repeat of the same procedure that endangered Mr. Achebe’s life by issuing a refrain from recurrently using the order picker. He would have offered a safer method to ensure that Mr. Achebe descent was safe.

Discussion and Analysis

Based on the facts provided and the laws, the action taken by the company concerning the issue needs to be reviewed and appropriate action taken. Mr. Brown was not directly involved in the plan, and despite expressing his concerns, the company decided to dismiss him. The dismissal was unjust as the facts point out that he was not part of the plan and his other responsibilities within the company stopped him from preventing the execution of Mr. Achebe’s and Mr. Moran’s idea. However, as an assistant manager, Mr. Brown is expected to oversee the conduct of his employees and take appropriate action when the employees act against the rules and regulations of the company. He, therefore, failed to punish Mr. Achebe and Mr. Moran once he realized they had gone ahead with the plan despite his concerns. The company is therefore justified to punish Mr. Brown but not as severely as dismissing him from the job.

There was a breach of rules 5, 14, 24 and 7 concerning the company safety laws and guidelines. Therefore, all the persons involved needed to be punished accordingly.

Conclusion and Recommendation

The dismissal of Mr. Brown was unjust since he was not directly involved in the execution of the plan. The legal counsel needs to review the facts and analysis of the case to come up with appropriate actions to be taken against Mr. Achebe, Mr. Moran, Mr. Atleo and Mr. Brown. Mr. Moran was punished appropriately based on the laws of the company since he went against the laws that warrant immediate dismissal from the company by executing the plan.

Mr. Achebe was directly involved in the plan and was only given a written warning. This was unjust as the company laws and the employment laws of Canada state otherwise (Griffith & Macartney, 2014). According to the employment laws of Canada, if a disabled employee has the capacity to comply with the terms of the policies and fails to do so accordingly, he or she should be punished accordingly (Simintzi, Vig, & Volpin,2014). Based on the facts provided, Mr. Achebe was deemed to be punished through termination of employment. Mr. Achebe had the capacity to comply with the terms and policies of the company if he had listened to and accepted the proposal by Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown should not be dismissed since he was not directly involved in the execution of the plan. His other responsibilities prevented him from performing his duty appropriately. Based on the facts of the law he should be punished for not stopping the descent of Mr. Achebe using the order picker. He should, therefore, receive the punishment equal to the one Mr. Atleo received since they both failed to stop Mr. Achebe and Mr. Moran from using the order picker.

References

Griffith, R. & Macartney, G. (2014). Employment protection legistlation, multinational firms, and innovation. Review of economics and statistics , 96(11), 135-150.

Simintzi, E., Vig, V., & Volpin, P. (2014). Labor protection and leverage. The review of Financial Studies, 28(2), 561-591.