USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Discussion 4 Response InstructionsFirst Post by Student
Discussion 4 by Angela Weese
The employee entered the premise willfully during a time of day that
there would not be anyone else in the business. She willfully
conducted others to and engaged in actions that put herself and others
at risk. The explosiveness of the package while unknown the employee
was still engaged in actions that a reasonable person would assume
injury could occur. Sad truth is this is probably based on actual events.
While a company may be held liable for the actions of an employee
while performing their duties, this would not meet the definition of
scope of employment as laid out in The Doctrine of Respondeat
Superior. The employee was not authorized to be there at that time a
day. The time of the act occurred at 2am, which is not part of normal
operations for the warehouse. The employers’ interests were most
certainly not advanced by the result of the employee’s actions. The
forklift was a company provided asset but was not used in the normal
course of business. I do believe the events as they are laid out here
represent a “frolic of his (her) own.”
Depending on the nature of the warehouse, if they were storing goods
for other vendors, they may have a financial responsibility to replace
damaged property as a result of the employee’s actions, that would
most likely be covered under an insurance policy that covers such
losses.
The employer certainly would have authority to terminate Ms. Careless
based on the actions described and pursue legal remedies of their own
for the trespass and the damages done to the property and begin
gathering documents that support any criminal investigation against
the employee. “Employment at will is the default rule regarding
employment termination in forty-nine of the fifty U.S. states.” (Corbett,
2021). Even with this as the guiding principle in the United States, it is
in the company’s best interest to anticipate any discrimination claims
that may come up. Documents that would typically need to be
provided in ascertaining all eventualities are employee records
including any disciplinary action. This would help in determining if
there were prior instances that would provide the employer with any
foreknowledge that such an incident could occur. If there were signs to
this effect did the employer do anything to provide assistance or
resolve issues before the events that occurred. Employee handbooks
that hopefully outline behaviors that are not allowed including being in
the building while not engaged in work activities, not being on the
premise at anytime while intoxicated. Other documentation could
include any paperwork that defines a disability if it is applicable.
A few other considerations could be if the employer made reasonable
efforts to keep the facility itself safe. Were there security surveillance
initiated on the facility that would provide video evidence of the
events. All of this information would be discussed with the lawyer in
hopes that there is no doubt that the employee was not acting in any
official capacity.
References
Corbett, W. R. (2021). Firing Employment at Will and Discharging
Termination Claims from Employment Discrimination: A Cooperative
Federalism Approach to Improve Employment Law. Cardozo Law
Review, 42(6), 2281–2343.
Second Post by Student
Discussion #4 by L. Farmer
From the following event the following facts are what I feel should be examined
first, while CC worked for WWW and had access to the company’s facility, she
should not have entered onto the premise after work hours in her condition.
Allowing her friends to also enter the property is an intentional tort against
property. From the civil aspect, CC and her friends could be brought up on
negligence charges. The tort of negligence occurs when someone suffers injury
because of another’s failure to live up to a required duty of care (Clarkson). In
order for WWW to succeed in a negligence action, the plaintiff must prove each
of the following: 1. Duty. The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. 2.
Breach. The defendant breached that duty. 3.Causation. The defendant’s breach
caused the plain-tiff’s injury. 4. Damages. The plaintiff suffered a legally
recognizable injury. In this situation CC failed to comply with a duty to exercise
reasonable care when she brought her drunken friends into the warehouse and
decided to use company equipment in an obstacle course which led to an
explosion. Due to CC and her friends breaking into a nonresidential building
this led to serious damages to the building, other equipment, and inventory.
Even though CC had given permission to her friends this was not her right to
give.
In Missouri I believe this would fall under section 569.140. Trespass in the first
degree – penalty. person commits the offense of trespass in the first degree if he
or she knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a
building or inhabitable structure or upon real property (Missouri). The offense
of trespass in the first degree is a class B misdemeanor. As with any crime, the
specific factors of the event will be what determines the charge and penalties. In
the case with CC, I feel this incident will lead to further charges due to the
nature of the damage and the operating of heavy machinery will intoxicated.
Trespassing is only one part, but the other is that they were operating heavy
machinery while under the influence which led to the destruction of WWW
property.
One other particularly critical component to this case is the liability that WWW
should have in not knowing what items where in their warehouse to begin with.
WWW is responsible for accepting any inventory that they come into contact
with. With these items consisting of explosives and automatic weapons, WWW
should have known of these items and reported to authorities. Due to WWW
overlooking of this pallet of packages, I feel WWW will receive some
questioning as to their inventory processes and procedures. Even if CC and her
friends had not been messing with those pallets, other employees during work
hours could have been transporting them and an explosion could have occurred.
This could have led to the injury of many of WWW’s employees.
Ethically, the acts that CC participated in was wrong and put both herself and
friends at risk. Aside from the explosive pallets that should not have been in the
warehouse this stunt was extremely dangerous and very unprofessional. The one
correct action that CC took was calling the policy and fire department to report
the incident.
Sources:
“569.140.” Missouri Revisor of Statutes – Revised Statutes of Missouri, RSMo,
Missouri Law, MO Law, Joint Committee on Legislative Research,
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=569.140#:~:text=%E2%8
0%94%201.,structure%20or%20upon%20real%20property.&text=(2)%20Posti
ng%20in%20a%20manner,to%20the%20attention%20of%20intruders.
Clarkson, Kenneth W., and Roger LeRoy Miller. Business Law: Text and Cases.
Cengage, 2021.
Discussion 5 Response Instructions
First Post by Student
Discussion #5 by L. Farmer
I appreciate you reaching out in regard to the situation with Holly
Hopeful and Jack Jump. I will look into the events that led to Holly
cutting her hand and the legal issues that may arise from the
unexpected termination of Jack. It is always hard on company morale
when situations such as this occur, so I think it is very important to get
these situations resolved as soon as possible.
The incident that resulted in Holly cutting her hand on the blade is a
very unfortunate accident. Anytime work tasks revolve around
dangerous equipment there should be additional safeguards in place
to help and prevent as many accidents as possible. According to
Harvard Business Review, putting in 12 hours or more of work a day is
linked to a 37 percent greater risk of being injured or becoming ill on
the job (Drake). The more hours an employee works, the greater his or
her risk is of being injured or becoming ill on the job. With that being
said, according to OSHA there are no federal limits on the number of
hours of overtime an employee may be allowed to work. However, they
also state that there are inherent dangers associated with prolonged
work shifts. Ethically Holly should have made the decision to not work
the additional hours knowing the fact of how tired and worn down she
was. That put her and the company at risk by making such careless
decisions. A report by the federal Center for Disease Control and
Prevention found that prolonged overtime can cause “decreased
alertness, increased fatigue, lower cognitive function, increased injuries,
periods of extreme tension and anxiety, gastrointestinal pain or
discomfort, and chest pain.” In addition to these symptoms, OSHA
guidelines state that other symptoms can include weariness, sleepiness,
irritability, lack of motivation, increased susceptibility to illness,
depression, headaches and dizziness (Walker). I feel that we should also
look into our guidelines and make sure that we are doing everything to
ensure our employee’s safety. A few areas we might be able to
improve would be allowing for additional breaks or lunches. Also, I
think it is important that we monitor the number of overtime hours
being worked.
In regard to Jack, there was no reason that he should not have
completed the tasks of his job. So, I understand your frustrations,
however there may be bigger issues going on with Jack and I think it
would be a good idea to have another conversation with him. With
Holly and Jack being the only two that can operate the machine I feel
that it is definitely worth talking things over with him to see if there are
underlying issues that can be resolved instead of resulting in
termination. While Missouri follows the Employment-At-Will doctrine.
This means that both the employer and employee can terminate the
employment relationship at any time and for any reason, as long as
there is no employment contract to the contrary, there is no
discrimination under civil rights laws (based on race, color, age,
national origin, religion, ancestry, sex, or physical/mental disability).
(DOL) So legally I don’t think there are any issues if you still want to
proceed with Jack’s termination, but I think by talking with him we
might be able to resolve this issue without needing to terminate.
Please let me know your thoughts and how you would like to proceed.
Sincerely,
Lynsey
Sources:
“The Dangers of Excessive Overtime.” Drake, Hileman & Davis, PC, 3
Dec. 2020, https://www.dhdlaw.com/the-dangers-of-excessiveovertime/.
“Discharged Employees and Final Wages.” Missouri Labor,
https://labor.mo.gov/DLS/General/discharged.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. “Overtime and Extended Work
Shifts: Injuries, Illnesses, and Other Effects.” International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, 3 Aug. 2016, https://teamster.org/overtime-andextended-work-shifts-injuries-illnesses-and-other-effects/.
Walker, Daniel. “OSHA Overtime Safety Limits.” Small Business Chron.com, Chron.com, 21 Nov. 2017,
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/osha-overtime-safety-limits4954.html.
Second Post by Student
Steve B. Discussion 5
Mr. Boss,
Thank you for reaching out to me, and explaining your concern about
the situation. I would say that It is illegal to terminate employees
because they are joining, assisting, or forming a union. According to
the National Labor Board, “The National Labor Relations Act forbids
employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of rights relating to organizing, forming, joining or
assisting a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes, or
from working together to improve terms and conditions of
employment, or refraining from any such activity.” JJ was right in failing
to handle the machine because of the risk HH experienced, which led
to her injury. Based on laws on labor laws, employees are allowed to
negotiate their terms of employment and working conditions, including
the safety of their working conditions (Clarkson & Miller, 2021). In this
case, the machine had presented the risk of causing injury to the
employee. Also, employers are obligated to ensure the safety of their
employees. Thus, BB is not right to be angry because HH’s injury cost
the company. Also, when employees raise concerns over the safety of
their workplace, it is important that employers take appropriate
measures to curb those issues, not firing them (Clarkson & Miller,
2021). Because, in such cases, the employer will be violating the labor
laws. NLB states that “transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning
employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees
because they filed unfair labor practice charges or participated in an
investigation conducted by NLRB” violates labor laws. These issues are
essential that BB understands, and as the Human Resource Manager, I
am responsible for making that clear for both parties in this case.
Besides, promoting a workplace where employees cannot raise
concerns without facing retaliatory measures such as firing creates a
toxic workplace culture that promotes inactiveness, low productivity,
low retention, and low job satisfaction among workers. The tone set by
top leadership will largely dictate the culture that prevails throughout
the organization on all levels (Koropets, 2019). The risk to current and
future GG employees if the current practices continue includes job
dissatisfaction, loss of morale, and reduced productivity and
performance of individual employees. The toxic work environment
within which they are subjected will increase the manifestation of these
risks. Studies on psychology and human resource management suggest
that a toxic workplace can significantly damage the trust and
relationship between an employer and the employee (Rasool et al.,
2021). Leaders who think nothing more of discriminating employees
will think nothing of disrespecting and bullying their employees.
Thus, based on these factors, I suggest that we must consider that his
approach to handling this incident has several legal implications that
will likely cost the company financially and its reputation. Terminating
the employees goes against labor laws. Most importantly, we have to
understand that the basis for JJ to refuse to handle the machine is
justifiable that HH’s injury occurred in the workplace and the cost GG
incurred in treating her was obligatory. Mr. Boss, we should consider
reinstituting the two, and establish better policies on handling
workplace safety, employee engagement, and compliance with labor
laws on employees’’ efforts to join, form, or assist unions.
Sincerely,
Steve
References:
Clarkson, K., & Miller, R. (2021). Business Law: Text and Cases (15th ed.).
Cengage. eText
Koropets, O. (2019). Toxic workplace: Problem description and search
for management solutions. In European Conference on Management,
Leadership & Governance (pp. 505-508). Academic Conferences
International Limited.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2019). Policy, data, oversight
work-life. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved January 27,
2022, from https://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/worklife/reference-materials/alcoholism-in-the-workplace-ahandbook-for-supervisors/
National Labor Relations Board. (2021). Employer/Union rights and
obligations. Employer/Union Rights and Obligations | National Labor
Relations Board. Retrieved January 27, 2022, from
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/yourrights/employer-union-rights-and-obligations
Rasool, S. F., Wang, M., Tang, M., Saeed, A., & Iqbal, J. (2021). How tox ic
workplace environment effects the employee engagement: the
mediating role of organizational
