Computer Video = Oral Notice ???

[Plato]

We all know an employer has the right to ban his employees with CHLs from carrying in the place of business. To do so in accord with the law (as I understand it) he may either give written notice (with the exact and proper wording) or oral notice (although I'm not clear if he must use exact and proper wording when oral?)

But my question is -would a general no guns policy (not using 30.06 wording or any mention of CHLs) given through a computer video during orientation at the time of hiring = the oral notice mentioned in the law.

Obviously the question here is intended to deal with the law only -as we all know an employer can fire anyone at anytime for anyreason.

[TexasVet]

I would take it as such. Especially if you have to click something at the end signifying that you read and understand the rules.

[Lumberjack98]

I would take it as such. Especially if you have to click something at the end signifying that you read and understand the rules.

+1

Oral notice does not need to include the exact 30.06 language. "No guns" is sufficient.

[Keith B]

I am assuming the video had someone speaking the 'no guns' policy. We have some videos and training that do not speak, but just have the wording written out as you go through with music in the background. If it was 'spoken word', then I would agree that is would be considered oral notification.

[stroo]

An employer doesn't need to follow 30.06. If they give you any kind of notice and catch you with a firearm on their premises, they can fire you. For that matter, they may not even have to give you notice of any kind.

[barres]

An employer doesn't need to follow 30.06. If they give you any kind of notice and catch you with a firearm on their premises, they can fire you. For that matter, they may not even have to give you notice of any kind.

Yes, but the OP stated that he is asking about legalities and whether or not he could be prosecuted. He is already aware that he could/would be fired.

I think a video tape/disc/computer file of a person delivering a no guns message would suffice. As someone already posted, there are no guidelines in the penal code for what constitutes oral notice. IANAL, though. I hope Charles will step in a give his opinion on this.

[shootthesheet]

Yes.

[aardwolf]

An employer doesn't need to follow 30.06. If they give you any kind of notice and catch you with a firearm on their premises, they can fire you. For that matter, they may not even have to give you notice of any kind.

That's true. The 30.06 signs do not apply to peace officers but a company with a "no guns" policy can fire an employee who carries a gun at work even if the employee is a peace officer. However, they won't have much luck prosecuting him for violating the 30.06 law.

As far as the video being oral notice, that's up to responding officers. If they arrest for 30.06, then it's up to the DA if he's going to press charges. If it makes it to court, then it's up to a judge or jury if it's oral notice.

[srothstein]

I think this is one of those questions Charles like to refer to as law exam types. It really is a good question that could be answered either way. Oral can mean just spoken words, but it can also have meanings referring to the mouth. If it came from a computer, was it really from the mouth?

A part of the question to look at is if the computer was just playing a video of the owner or something like that. I would think a video of an owner would probably be upheld since he could not be expected to talk with each employee every time. By the same token, I would think an anonymous voice over during a slide show of the policies would not count. To me, that would be more of a publication that would require the proper 30.06 wording.

As always, I would advise not becoming the test case. I am not that curious about how the courts would handle it.

[Plato]

I think this is one of those questions Charles like to refer to as law exam types. It really is a good question that could be answered either way. Oral can mean just spoken words, but it can also have meanings referring to the mouth. If it came from a computer, was it really from the mouth?

A part of the question to look at is if the computer was just playing a video of the owner or something like that. I would think a video of an owner would probably be upheld since he could not be expected to talk with each employee every time. By the same token, I would think an anonymous voice over during a slide show of the policies would not count. To me, that would be more of a publication that would require the proper 30.06 wording.

As always, I would advise not becoming the test case. I am not that curious about how the courts would handle it.

These comments mirror my thinking, and it is why I posted the original question -just wondered if anyone had more info or experience to offer.

In the case of an extremely large company there's no way the orientation video will have the owner speaking the general "no guns" policy to the computer screen. And no actual manager in the local facility will be in the video either. The policy will be stated with still pictures and writing with a voice in the background pretty much stating what's on the screen. The orientation video is serving the role of a policy handbook in an attempt to communicate the info to the minimum wage (often illiterate) workers being hired.

[pedalman]

This reminds me of a rule of thumb I gleaned from an old Master Sargeant while I was in the Air Force:

"If you are wondering if you need a haircut, then you probably do need a haircut."

[barres]

I think this is one of those questions Charles like to refer to as law exam types. It really is a good question that could be answered either way. Oral can mean just spoken words, but it can also have meanings referring to the mouth. If it came from a computer, was it really from the mouth?

A part of the question to look at is if the computer was just playing a video of the owner or something like that. I would think a video of an owner would probably be upheld since he could not be expected to talk with each employee every time. By the same token, I would think an anonymous voice over during a slide show of the policies would not count. To me, that would be more of a publication that would require the proper 30.06 wording.

As always, I would advise not becoming the test case. I am not that curious about how the courts would handle it.

These comments mirror my thinking, and it is why I posted the original question -just wondered if anyone had more info or experience to offer.

In the case of an extremely large company there's no way the orientation video will have the owner speaking the general "no guns" policy to the computer screen. And no actual manager in the local facility will be in the video either. The policy will be stated with still pictures and writing with a voice in the background pretty much stating what's on the screen. The orientation video is serving the role of a policy handbook in an attempt to communicate the info to the minimum wage (often illiterate) workers being hired.

But a person is speaking in the recorded video. And that person is obviously speaking on behalf of the owner/management of the business, which satisfies the requirement of who can give oral notice per PC30.06. The only real question is whether or not a recording is still oral notification. IMHO, it would be, but IANAL.

[stroo]

General rule with regard to notices on the internet is that if it is in writing on the screen, the notice is a written notice. If it is spoken in a video, it is oral notice. If it is both written with a voice over as proposed here, the notice would be both written and oral. However in this case, the written notice doesn't meet 30.06 while the oral notice may very well meet 30.06.

SRothstein - I think we are saying basically the same thing.

I am not giving any legal advice here to anyone.

[Plato]

General rule with regard to notices on the internet is that if it is in writing on the screen, the notice is a written notice. If it is spoken in a video, it is oral notice. If it is both written with a voice over as proposed here, the notice would be both written and oral. However in this case, the written notice doesn't meet 30.06 while the oral notice may very well meet 30.06.

SRothstein - I think we are saying basically the same thing.

I am not giving any legal advice here to anyone.

Heh, trust me I don't wish to be the test case on this one. I find the both the law as well as the approach by most employers kinda goofy on this. They both offer us a very clear shade of grey

I'm not even clear what the oral notice must be ? The actual wording of the written communication is spelled out, but the oral notice is unclear. Most tell me a simple oral "no firearms" policy stated by someone in "charge" will do, but that doesn't seem to follow PC 30.06 (a)(2). I mean if the oral notice does not even mention "concealed handgun" how can that be the "notice" found in PC 30.06 (a)(2) ?

[Plato]

But a person is speaking in the recorded video. And that person is obviously speaking on behalf of the owner/management of the business, which satisfies the requirement of who can give oral notice per PC30.06. The only real question is whether or not a recording is still oral notification. IMHO, it would be, but IANAL.

While I'm not sure that's the only real question -it is the one I was originally getting at with this post. I guess its something that a judge or jury would eventually decide. I think most folks think of oral communication as face to face verbal communication with a live person. But once man started recording sound things got pretty confusing.

And why the heck the lawmakers put the exact word requirement into the "written communication" requirement but left the "oral" undefined is beyond me.