DISCUSSION QUESTION
Binding attrition is an alternative approach to solving conflict outside the courtroom. It entails the invitation of a neutral third party to help in resolving the dispute (Freeman, 1995). In this case of the Gizmos Inc., Sydney has opted to submit his case to the arbitrator. This will mean that the case may not necessarily reach the court so long as a common ground is reached. Becky Sharp, on the other hand, has opted to present her grievance to a state court. Her case will reach the court since it is found under the Federal Family, and Medical Leave Act. Since Sidney has submitted his case to an arbitrator, Gizmos Inc. will be required to submit its briefs of facts to the arbitrator. The arbitrator will then arrange for private proceedings of the case. (Freeman, 1995) During the proceedings, Sydney will give his side of the story to convince the arbitrator that he was unlawfully fired. In his defense, Sydney will state reasons why he refused to take the surprise drug test. He may say that there was no clause that stated that surprise drug test will be taken, at the time the contract was being signed. He may also support his case by stating that there was no drug test performed to him. The company is wrong because assuming that he was using drugs. He may also say that the company had a hidden agenda given that they had previously fired his colleague, Becky. Sidney can also defend himself by saying that if he was using drugs, the act of firing him is not the best way to deal with the problem. He could add that the company could have exploited other means of dealing with the problem of drug abuse. The company could have approached him and found out whether he was suffering from drug addiction. The company could have acted in good faith by offering to take Sydney to a rehabilitation center so that the problem is properly addressed, and Sydney would continue to offer his services to the company.
Becky’s case will reach the court after she files it. The company will then be served with the petition and asked to appear in court at a certain predetermined time. In her defense, Becky would claim that she has the right, under the Family and Medical leave Acts, to be given a leave if she is expecting. She would add that the company did not act lawfully in reorganizing the company while leaving her out. The company should have ensured that all its employees find where to fit in their new system. The company did not follow the rules of reorganization. Becky would argue that she is expecting. This would mean that she is not able to work hence only relies on her job for support.
Sydney’s case may end in two ways: Sydney may lose his job or may retain it. The arbitrator may ask Sydney to go for a drug test so as to ascertain whether he uses drugs or not. The company will then be asked if they want to support Sydney and take him to a rehabilitation center and retain him or whether they as an organization not willing to work with him. Becky’s case may also end in two ways. The company may be asked to absorb Becky in their new system. The company can, alternatively, be asked to pay Becky some amount to cover her during the period she is expecting until the time she will get a new job.
Wheels for Hire
2a). the plaintiff
There is evidence that the actions of Mr. Sam caused harm to me and my passenger. I, therefore, have grounds to sue the company, Wheels for Hire, for the damages caused by its employee (Mr. Sam). According to Agency Law, the principal’s duties to an agent are: compensation, cooperation and safe working conditions. The company is responsible for its employee’s mistakes. The employee, Mr. Sam, hit my car with a company car causing harm to me and my passenger. I, therefore, demand to be compensated by the company.
Judge: Do you have any proof that Mr. Sam is an employee of Wheels for Hire and that the car that hit you hit you belongs to the company?
Yes. Mr. Sam himself confessed to the officer at the site of the accident that he was an employee of Wheels for Hire. Mr. Sam also said he was allowed to use the vehicle that caused the accident although his boss was not aware he was using the vehicle. During the launch of the agency, a contract is signed between the company and the employee. The contract says that the Wheels for Hire Company will be to blame for the misconduct of the employee while performing his/her duties. The fact that Mr. Sam caused the accident while headed for lunch should not be used to force him to taking full responsibility of the act he committed. According to the Agency laws, Liability to Third Parties clause, the company should be liable for the acts of employees when these acts are performed within the scope of duties. The activity of going to lunch is a routine thing that happens in the business every day. The activity of going to lunch therefore is found inside the scope of duties of the employees. The accuracy of the information indicating that the said car that was involved the accident belongs to the Gizmos Company puts the company in the limelight. The car directly caused the injuries to me and my passenger, and this is the reason I am suing the company.
Judge: what type of compensation would you want the company to give you?
The Wheels for Hire Company should take care of all the medical bills for my entire treatment. The company should ensure that the medical bills of my passenger are also taken care of. The company should repair my vehicle that was wrecked during the accident. Due to this accident, I am not able to go to work and, therefore, I cannot sustain myself. The business should offer me monetary support so that my family is sustained for the period I am healing until I will be able to fend for myself. In as much as the company should be responsible for the actions of Mr. Sam, Mr. Sam should also be charged for being careless on the road. This is to ensure that it serves as a warning to other employees so that they do not become careless. He should not be left to walk a free man. He should be dealt with both at the court level and also at the company level. The court should offer him a fine or an equivalent jail time. The company can also demote him from his current position.This will ensure that the mistake is not repeated again by him. The court should find Wheels for Hire responsible for the actions of Mr. Sam, under the Agency Laws and subject. The company should compensate me and my passenger, the victims of the accident caused by the company’s employee while using the company’s car.
2b). the Defendant
The employee, Mr. Sam, did not cause the injuries while performing the duties of the company. Mr. Sam was going for lunch, to fulfil his personal needs. Mr. Sam was not authorized to use the car that caused the accident. The procedure that he used to access the car was not the correct procedure of accessing the company’s vehicles. The company is disappointed with Mr. Sam’s conduct of colluding with our attendant at the ignition kiosk, Mr. Curly, to unlawfully access the company’s car.
The company regrets the injuries that were caused to the victims of the accident. However, the company do not think that it is responsible for the injuries. Indeed under the Agency Law, the company should take responsibilities of actions of its employees while performing their duties. Mr. Sam was not performing the duties of the company when the accident occurred. Mr. Sam was going to lunch; this is not stated in his job description.
The agency law under the Duties of Agents and Principals clause, states that the employees should be loyal, obedient, accountable, and hardworking. The employee was not loyal to the company. He did not obey the regulations of the company while acquiring the car. Due to this, the company cannot, therefore, offer to shoulder the burden brought by the actions of the employee. Mr. Sam and Mr. Curly already disobeyed the rules articulated in the contract that was signed between them and the Wheels for Hire Company. Mr. Sam should be responsible for the injuries that he caused to the victims. The fact that the employee disobeyed the rules of the company can result to termination of the contract between the company, Wheels for Hire, and the employee, Sam.
Judge: Were you aware that Mr. Sam had the company car?
No, the communication occurred between Mr. Sam and the attendant, Mr. Curly. There is a form that the company requires to be filled out when one wants to use any of the company’s cars. Mr. Sam’s duties were to clean the vehicles, gas them, move them from one lot to another and maintain the showroom. The accident did not occur while Sam was performing any of the duties mentioned above. Mr. Sam is not authorized to use the company vehicles to go for lunch or to fulfil any of his needs.
The court should find Mr. Sam responsible for the injuries he caused to the victims of the accident. If anything, the company should punish Mr. Sam and Mr. Curly for disobeying the company’s laws. The company is not saying that the victims of the accident do not have the right to be compensated, but the victims are suing the wrong entity here. The company is a different entity from the employees (Emerson, 2009). The company proposes that Mr. Sam be held responsible and that if there is compensation to be given then Mr. Sam should be the one to compensate the victims. The company would like to make it known to the court that it will be consulting with its legal team so as to determine how to punish Mr. Sam and Curly for disobeying the laws of the company. The company will determine whether it should terminate the agency agreements by agreement or operation of the law (Emerson, 2009). We ask the court to act in utmost fairness in ensuring that as the cries of the victims of the accident are being addressed, they should be addressed in the correct way.
2c). the Judge
The law allows one to sue a business for the actions of an employee while performing his duties. The law also offers protection to the company, in the sense that if an employee’s actions are outside the scope of his/her duties then the company does not take responsibility (Jones, 2013). In the Wheels for Hire Company case, the law proposes that the employee be responsible for his/her actions.
In this case, what is factual is that Mr. Sam caused the accident that led to the injuries of the victims. The issue that present itself here is whether the company should take responsibility or not. The company’s argument is that they were not aware that one of their employee, Mr. Sam, was going for lunch using the company’s vehicle. The agency laws clearly stipulate that the principal, which is the company, will take responsibility for the actions of its agent, who is the employee, while performing his/her duties (Kubasek, Brennan & Browne, 2014). The question is: did the accident occur in the process of performing duties? The answer is no. The accident occurred while the employee was attending to personal issues.
The company is, therefore, not responsible for the injuries of the victims. The thought that the car that caused the said accident belongs to the company does not make the company responsible. It has been found that Mr. Sam illegally accessed the vehicle in question. He should, therefore, be punished not only for causing the accident but also for disobeying rules of the company. Mr. Curly should also be punished for not following the company’s procedure for giving out the company car that caused the accident. The victims have the right to be compensated since the accident directly affected them (Jones, 2013). The court rules that the company is not responsible for the injuries of the victims. Mr. Sam is responsible for the injuries caused by the accident.
Reference
Emerson .R , (2009). Business Law. 2nd ed, Barron’s Educational Series.
Freeman .M (1995) Alternative Dispute resolution. 3rd ed, New York University Press.
Jones .L, (2013). Introduction to Business Law. 2nd ed, Oxford University Press.
Kubasek .N Brennan .B, & Browne .N (2014). The Legal Environment of Business. 2nd ed,
Pearson Education.
