Read an article and answer the following questions:

• Identify and describe both the legal and economic issues that should be considered in relation to the article e.g. What economic impacts are identified in the article? If not explicitly mentioned, what (if any) would be the financial or economic impacts from the issues or actions identified in the article? Which laws are mentioned? Which laws apply? Which legal processes are being used? Which legal concepts are at hand? (remember legal processes are grievances, arbitrations, human rights, etc.)
• Feedback - what specific advice or direction would you provide an employer based on the relevant issues identified in the new article?

If using external sources, APA references need to be provided.

FYI: This case took place in Canada, so it's essential to analyze the case with Canadian laws/regulations, governments and etc. at the time.

B.C. chicken handler fired for roughing up poultry https://www.cbc.caews/canada/british-columbia/bc-chicken-handler-fired-1.5388057 Union argued that worker didn't violate the company's protocol Maryse Zeidler . CBC News . Posted: Dec 09, 2019 5:00 AM PST | Last Updated: December 9, 2019 A recent B.C. labour arbitration decision about the firing of a man accused of mishandling chickens in a processing plant offers a peek into the highly regulated world of poultry factories. | According to a B.C. Labour Arbitration Award decision issued in September, chicken hanger Francisco Cahanap was let go from his job at a Sofina Foods processing plant on April 23. Cahanap's job required him to grab live chickens from a moving crate and hang them upside down in shackles every four seconds, alongside eight other workers. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 1518, which filed the grievance on the worker's behalf, argued that Cahanap was highly trained and handled the chickens within the plant's standards. However, Sofina Foods told the arbitrator that Cahanap's handling was rough enough to prompt concern from an auditor and supervisors. Workers at the processing plant were expected to hang live chickens from shackles about every four seconds. (David Tadevosian/Shutterstock) All parties agreed the industry is highly regulated, with strict guidelines for animal care and welfare. The decision also points out that Cahanap was already on a "last chance agreement" because of an earlier incident that put him on probation.Experienced worker According to the decision, Cahanap worked as a live hanger for 10 years. The worker testified that he had attended many training sessions over the years, and got weekly reminders on hanging procedures. Before the April firing, Cahanap was also fired in February for violating the plant's prevention of workplace violence, bullying and harassment policy. The union fought for him to be reinstated, and the company agreed as long as he didn't commit any more disciplinary offences. Cahanap's job entailed taking a live chicken from a crate moving along a conveyor belt, inspecting its condition and placing its legs in a specific set of shackles. This was done about every four seconds. 'Zero tolerance' for abuse The decision says the birds have to be handled gently, without grabbing them by the wings or neck. The consequences of improperly handling the chickens can be serious, the decision says including full plant shut downs. Veterinarians from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are located on site and have to be present during a slaughter, the decision says, and at any given time there could be internal or external auditors "There is 'zero tolerance' for animal neglect or abuse," the decision said. Any deviation from standard procedure needs to be reported and can result in disciplinary procedures. External audit scheduled 0n the dayr of the incident that led to Cahanap getting fired, an animal welfare audit with an external auditor had been scheduled. The decision savs the worker went to a 10-minute \"refresher crew talk" the day before. The day of the audit, Cahanap was in third position on the line, wearing protective equipment that includes overalls, respirators, and hard hats. The plant's internal auditor stood behind him and the other eight hangers. She testified that she saw one of the workers being "kind of rough" with the birds, in a way that would stress or possibly injure them, and flagged the issue with the company's HR department. The plant manager testified Cahanap was "very rough" with the birds, and testified that he told Cahanap to be gentler instructions the manager said Cahanap ignored, at least twice. No breach in audit report The union argued that Cahanap handled the birds within the plant's standards, and the external auditor didn't mention a breach of protocol in her report. The company's auditor signalled the offence to Cahanap's Supervisor, and the plant decided the incident constituted a non-trivial disciplinary offence that violated the agreement from February. The company also decided CahanaR was insubordinate for ignoring the plant manager's request to be gentler. Cahanap was fired. The union filed a grievance, but the arbitrator sided with the company. "This conduct was improper and contrary to his training, the employer's clear expectations and well- understood policies and procedures relating to animal welfare and hanging birds,\" the arbitrator wrote