Non sequitir.

The presence of an IBC tote would imply the presence of some equipment necessary to move it (at least a pallet jack, possibly a forklift), maybe.

However, the inverse does not follow: absence of a tote does not imply the absence of the equipment needed to move one. The presence or absence of the equipment is logically independent of the absence of the equipment (even though it would be be implied by the presence of the equipment).

This is called denying the antecedent. The conditional does not imply the inverse. In symbolic terms:

Conditional: p → q
Inverse: ¬p → ¬q

(p → q) → (¬p → ¬q) is false.

If you're going to make claims on the Internet, it's worth learning at least a little propositional logic.