Business Management Case Studies and Discussion on Applicable Rules and Legislations

This article presents two case studies on business management and discusses the applicable rules and legislations. The first case study deals with an employee's political beliefs affecting his job prospects, while the second case study deals with the responsibility of transporting inmates. The article also discusses the rights of citizens and employees, and the responsibilities of organizations.

Running head: BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Business Management
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Authors Note:

1
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Contents
Case study 1:....................................................................................................................................2
Case study 2:....................................................................................................................................5
References:......................................................................................................................................8

2
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Case study 1:
There are number of issues associated with the facts of the case. The followings are the main
issues:
I. Has Nesbitt done anything wrong by expressing his opinion on political matters after
the completion of the interview?
II. Is the decision of Dewey to not appoint Nesbitt to the position which he perfectly
deserves as per his interview and qualifications is justified?
III. The course of actions available to Nesbitt in the matter after receiving the letter from
Dewey of not appointing him to the position in the law firm due his strong political
beliefs.
Discussion on applicable rules and legislations:
The Federal Law Structure in Canada allows the general public as well as employees of
companies and other types of organizations certain rights and privileges. These rights and
privileges if breached by any organization or employer then the person affected by such breach
have certain rights. Such rights include taking action against the party or organization at fault and
asking for compensation in case of financial loss. Also the person who has been adversely
affected due to any such action by an organization is allowed to file legal suit to the court asking
for appropriate action against the organization or the company (Peters, 2015).
The Constitution of Canada allows the citizens of the country to have an independent and
own point of view of political environment and state in the country. The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) adopted in 1948 states the rights and responsibilities of general public of
the country. It is clearly stated in Article 19 of UDHR that each and every individual in the

3
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
country has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. As per the provisions of UDHR
expression of opinion and free speech by a citizen in the country cannot be restricted and barred
by any provision of law. A citizen has the right to express his opinion on political, non-political
and any other matters without any restrictions as long as the views are not against any particular
religion or in any sensitive topic to hurt the sentiment of any community or general public.
An organization has the right to recruit and appoint personnel for different positions
within the organization as per its own rules and regulations. These rules and regulations shall be
valid as long as these are not against the general employment policies in the country and not
illegal. However, as already mentioned that Article 19 of UDHR do allow the citizens of the
country to have the right of expressing their selves freely including expression of opinion on
political matters. Thus, an organization does not have the right to reject the candidature of an
applicant just because the candidate has different political affiliation and expressed such
affiliation during any conversations (Hathaway, 2017).
Taking into consideration the discussion above the answer to the questions in relation to the facts
of case provided below:
Part a:
The decision of Dewey to not offer a position to Nesbitt in the firm as he has strong political
affiliation towards the Freedom Party whereas Dewey, Getem and Howe have strong political
affiliation towards People’s party. The reason that they are incapable of offering any position in
the firm to Nesbitt as the expected result of such appointment is losing 50% clients of the firm is
not as per the provisions of Article 19 of Universal Development of Human Rights and
Constitution in the country (Hemsworth, 2015).

4
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
The law firm has all the rights to appoint and recruit personnel of its choice however, the
candidates’ political affiliation and expression of opinion on political affiliation could not be
used as a reason to reject the candidature to a position in an organization. Thus, Nesbitt can take
appropriate legal action against the law firm including compensation for loss of reputation and
harassment. Nesbitt can also ask the court to recommend appoint of his in any of the positions
within the law firm suitable and applicable to the qualification he holds.
Part b:
An organization whether law firm or any other organization has the right to make its own policy
of recruitment and appointment of workers and employees to improve work environment and
culture within the place. Often organizations make own health policy such as smokers and
alcoholics shall not be recruited within the organization keeping in mind the importance of health
and promote healthy life style and culture within the workplace. In such case, where the
organization has a standard policy of not recruiting or appointing smokers the decision of the law
firm to not offer a position to Nesbitt in the law firm as he is a smoker is justified and appropriate
(Freeman, 2017).
Thus, in this case Nesbitt will not have any right against the law firm as the firm has a standard
policy of not recruiting smokers and Nesbitt is a smoker making him ineligible to the position of
in the law firm. Hence, the answer to the question changes with change in circumstances
(Keenan, Angel, Martell, Pyne & Ahmed, 2016).

5
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Case study 2:
Discussion:
The responsibility of transporting inmates from one rehabilitation centre to other is on the
concern rehabilitation centre and the Government. The inmates are the responsibility of the
correction and rehabilitation centres operating under the umbrella of the Government in the
country. The reason rehabilitation centres including jails and prisons have been established is to
keep the criminals away from the society to keep the society safe and secure. The reason that
police system is there is to protect the society and citizens of the country from criminal activities
and unrest of different types.
In case the criminals flee from jails and rehabilitation centres then the responsibility lies with the
specific rehabilitation centre and the Government to protect the society and citizens of the
country from the criminal activities of the prisoners fled from the prison.
In this case, the responsibility of transporting one of the prisoners, Zeb Zuggins from the Peace
River Correctional Centre was on Alberta Correctional Services. Zeb has always been a model
inmate and has never committed any act to suggest that he can cause any trouble while
transporting to the City Edmonton from Alberta Correctional Services. According to the transfer
policy of the Government it is clear that the particular warden has the right to take decision in
regards to the procedures to be followed while transporting the inmates from one rehabilitation
centre to another. The governmental policy on transporting inmates also stated that in the event
of transporting inmates who have identified as low risk prisoners there is no need to use
restraining methods such as use of handcuffs and chains while transporting the inmates from one
place to another (Hathaway, 2017).

6
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
The behaviour of Zeb over the years in the prison has been that of a model inmate. There has
never been any incident of violence by or against him while in the correctional centre, i.e. Peach
River Correctional Centre. The reason to identify Zeb as low risk inmate was pretty much
evident from the behaviour of Zeb hence, there is no fault on the part of warden of Peach River
Correctional Centre. Thus, the decision of the warden to not use any restrained method while
transporting the inmate from the centre to City Edmond cannot be criticised as it is as per the
Government policy (Hemsworth, 2015).
During the transportation however, Zeb was able to flee and injured Helen Happy with the
intension of using her car to flee the scene. The inability of the two responsible person to
correctly transport Zeb is pretty much evident from the above. Helen was severely injured by
Zed as he suffered collar bone break and severe physical and mental trauma. The inability of
Alberta Correctional Services to safely transport the inmate from the Peace River Correctional
Centre to The city Edmond is very much evident.
Liability rests with Alberta Correctional services:
The warden of Peach River Correctional Centre is well within right to not use any handcuffs or
other restraining methods to transport Zeb from the correctional centre to City Edmonton since
Zeb has been identified as low risk inmate due to his clean record in the Peace River
Correctional Centre. Alberta Correctional Services is the organization which was responsible to
safely transport Zeb from Peace River Correctional Centre to City Edmond. Two of the staffs of
Alberta Correction Services failed to safely transport Zeb as he fled and injured a general citizen
of the country, Helen Happy severely during the course of transportation. Thus, it is clear that
Alberta Correctional Services has failed to discharge the responsibility of safely transporting Zeb

7
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
to City Edmond. As a result it is liable to Helen Happy to pay for the physical and mental
injuries suffered by Helen due to the organization’s inability to provide safety to the public while
transporting an inmate form one correctional centre to another.
Helen Happy thus, has all the rights to take action against the Alberta Correctional Services as it
failed to discharge its responsibility and in the process risked the life innocent civilian including
her. The possibility of Helene Happy to extract necessary compensation for physical and mental
injuries suffered by her due to the inability of Alberta Correctional Services to transport Zeb is
quite high. Helen Happy should be compensated financially for her physical and mental injuries.
The very basis is to bear all the expenses in relation to the treatment of Helen and the loss caused
due to her inability to continue working. In addition the huge mental trauma she has suffered as a
result must be considered while awarding compensation to her (Grant, 2016).
Hence, Helen Happy would be successful by taking actions against the Alberta Correctional
Services in this case.

8
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
References:
Freeman, M. (2017). Human rights. John Wiley & Sons.
Grant, E. M. (2016). Designing carceral environments for indigenous prisoners: A comparison of
approaches in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand, the US and Greenland
(Kalaallit Nunaat).
Hathaway, O. A. (2017). Do human rights treaties make a difference?. In International Law and
Society (pp. 3-110). Routledge.
Hemsworth, K. (2015). Carceral acoustemologies: Historical geographies of sound in a Canadian
prison. In Historical Geographies of Prisons (pp. 31-47). Routledge.
Keenan, L. P., Angel, C., Martell, R., Pyne, D., & Ahmed, R. A. (2016). Field Notes From Jail:
How Incarceration and Homelessness Impact Women's Health. Journal of Community
Engagement & Scholarship, 9(2).
Peters, L. (2015). The Development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In The
United Nations (pp. 109-139). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

9
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT