Question regarding firearms in the workplace

[rmr1923]

Your manual is telling you that if caught, you can be fired. Regardless of the definition of "premises" or "property", however, your manual does not, by statute, make it an offense if you carry a weapon- in other words, they can discipline you, but cannot have you arrested for carrying.

This.

The language does not meet the 30.06 requirements, but they can fire you for violating company policy. However, because Texas is an "at will" state, they can fire you for almost any reason, except those explicitly prohibited by law or contract.

yeah i understand that it doesn't meet the 30.06 requirement, i guess my initial question was more aimed at whether the company could fire me "with cause" for having a gun in my truck. this is just purely a hypothetical, given the work environment at this company i highly doubt they'd ask to search anyone's vehicle with the expectation that they'll find a weapon... we're a bunch of accountants, and i'd be willing to bet most violent criminals tend to have professions other than accounting. now if they were looking for a reason to fire me (which i have no reason to believe that they would, considering i just got a promotion), i suppose they could grasp at straws and try to get me on this IF they knew i had a gun in my truck, but i don't advertise to my coworkers that i carry a gun in my vehicle or that i've applied for my CHL.

i'm more interested in how to interpret the language of the company's policy (as well as state laws for concealed carry) more than anything. after taking the CHL class i was amazed at how so many of our laws seem wide open to interpretation. i took business law in college but that was VERY watered down and was focused primarily on contract law. i appreciate all the responses and everyone's insight on this subject.

[CompVest]

It depends on whether your company owns or is control of the parking lot and whether the lot is posted. Your employee handbook specifically states compnay property as well as premises.

[Teamless]

i guess my initial question was more aimed at whether the company could fire me "with cause" for having a gun in my truck

If the parking area is considered company property, the simple answer is "yes".

However, Texas is a "Right to Work State". Which means that a company does NOT need cause to terminate any employee.

[Grog]

[If they think you have one in your desk they can ask you to open your desk can they not? I see no difference in "property" from a desk to a vehicle in a parking lot all being on company property.

They own the desk, not the truck.



Years ago, doing security during a large motorcycle festival in Myrtle Beach SC, we had a rental property who notified everyone who would be staying there that motorcycles were not allowed on the property. One guy had his in the back of his truck, the property manager told me to take care of it.

I said "take care of what? The motorcycle is not on your property, it's on his property which is allowed to be parked on his property"


That ended that

[ScottDLS]

They would have no probable cause to search your vehicle unless you gave them some...

I think they have their ducks in a row so to speak. The only get out might be that your company is not the only company in that building or garage. I am assuming it is not a public type garage or is there any retail type business that shares the garage? If so then I'm sure they can not regulate customers vehicles too, but if private I think they got you pinned down from a discipline stand point but not legally as stated above.

Just as an idle question, since when does an employer need "probable cause" to search your car? If, for example, an employer requires a thorough search of every vehicle entering his property, does he need "probable cause" to search your car? Is the constitutional concept of probable cause even remotely applicable here? Might we be confusing the 4th Amendment with an employer's regulations applicable to his employees. It is also easy here to apply definitions to words like "property" and "premises" applicable to statutory provisions to the employer's regulations -- two very different things.

The repetitive advice here to just ignore the employer's rules might encourage some employers to tighten up their regulations about certain things about which they feel strongly, and make the search of your vehicle at any time a condition of your employment.

Of course you would quit your job. No problem.

Elmo
Just a devil's advocate

Sure employer doesn't need "probable cause" to search your car, but they need to be physically able to. So let's say they decide they want to search your car...for whatever/no reason. You simply say...my wife drove me to work. Maybe someone saw you park. Say, "My car's not here any more". OK finally, they find your car and the security/management orders you to open it. NO. I'm going to lunch. Bye. You might be fired, but they are going to be hard pressed to physically force you to allow a search of your car, especially if you have a gun and are willing to resist an assault on your person or burglary of your vehicle. And absent a legal prohibition on your having a gun in your car AND (generally) probable cause for a search or a warrant, they're not going to get a LEO to do it either. LEO's enforce the criminal statutes and occasionally civil process as ordered by a judge, not the whim of your employer.

[b322da]

...So let's say they decide they want to search your car...for whatever/no reason. You simply say...my wife drove me to work. Maybe someone saw you park. Say, "My car's not here any more"....

This just gets worse and worse.

If an employee of mine lied to me, or my agent, just once, much less twice, whether or not he had an unauthorized item in his car would be irrelevant. I would fire him on the spot for lying. I would most likely fire him if I discovered him giving advice like this to other employees. I can assure you that this would be the case whether he was a laborer or in top level of management.

His personnel records would reflect that he was fired for cause.

Elmo

[flechero]

This just gets worse and worse.

If an employee of mine lied to me, or my agent, just once, much less twice, whether or not he had an unauthorized item in his car would be irrelevant. I would fire him on the spot for lying. I would most likely fire him if I discovered him giving advice like this to other employees. I can assure you that this would be the case whether he was a laborer or in top level of management.

His personnel records would reflect that he was fired for cause.

Elmo

No disrespect intended.

If having the "item" in question in his auto is irrelevant, according to you, than any reason you give for wanting to search his car is also irrelevant. Lying about something that is none of your business is different than stealing or whatever. And as for pure 100% honesty, is that a courtesy you have given to every employee you have ever had? In every situation? Even during terminations, sick days/sneak out early days, etc.??? I'd like to believe it, but I can't quite get there- we are all human.

[b322da]

No disrespect intended.

If having the "item" in question in his auto is irrelevant, according to you, than any reason you give for wanting to search his car is also irrelevant. Lying about something that is none of your business is different than stealing or whatever. And as for pure 100% honesty, is that a courtesy you have given to every employee you have ever had? In every situation? Even during terminations, sick days/sneak out early days, etc.??? I'd like to believe it, but I can't quite get there- we are all human.

The presence or absence of the unauthorized item in the car became irrelevant only at the time he lied to me. Then it would not matter any more, since both he and his car would be gone forever. I was schooled by both my parents and my alma mater that "lying, cheating and stealing" were the super no-nos. When one does any one of those he ends my trust in him, our friendship and our relationship.

No, I have never to my knowledge lied to an employee nor, when in the military, a person either junior or senior to me in rank. Loyalty is a two-way street, under all circumstances.

There was no disrespect taken, flechero. We are not having a personal dispute; just a discussion, hopefully one of us, or both of us, has said something of some value to all the readers.

I might take the liberty of making one more point, possibly of value to persons who choose to ignore an employer's regulations and think that the employer needs probable cause, or consent, to search an employee's car, desk, cubicle, or such, on the employer's property . I will repeat that "probable cause" has no role here, being only a concept in this context arising under the 4th Amendment. The sanction against government agents for violation of the 4th Amendment is suppression of the evidence seized in violation of the Constitution -- it may not be used against the defendant at trial. Of course if the violation is bad enough the government agent (LEO, if you will) may himself be criminally prosecuted, as he should be.

Above, in this thread, I suspect that more than once "employer" has been confused with "government agent/LEO." In the most common case if an employer inspects your property on the job, including your car, he does not need probable cause to seize illegal items, and he can refer it and charges to law enforcement and the evidence can be used against you at trial -- even if we assume that the search would have been illegal if so conducted by an LEO. Please take care to see the word "illegal," as compared with "something the employer prohibits the possession of by his regulation," although something may be both at the same time, e.g., illegally-possessed narcotics.

Of course if the employer or his agent doing the search is also an agent of a law enforcement agency it is a different ballgame.

Elmo

[Ameer]

Sure employer doesn't need "probable cause" to search your car, but they need to be physically able to.

Consent is more important than physical ability. They're physically able to break a window to conduct the search, but that doesn't mean they're allowed to do it, and it doesn't protect them from 30.04 charges.

[b322da]

Sure employer doesn't need "probable cause" to search your car, but they need to be physically able to.

Consent is more important than physical ability. They're physically able to break a window to conduct the search, but that doesn't mean they're allowed to do it, and it doesn't protect them from 30.04 charges.

You mean this?

§ 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES. (a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks
into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to
commit any felony or theft.

Elmo

[ScottDLS]

...So let's say they decide they want to search your car...for whatever/no reason. You simply say...my wife drove me to work. Maybe someone saw you park. Say, "My car's not here any more"....

This just gets worse and worse.

If an employee of mine lied to me, or my agent, just once, much less twice, whether or not he had an unauthorized item in his car would be irrelevant. I would fire him on the spot for lying. I would most likely fire him if I discovered him giving advice like this to other employees. I can assure you that this would be the case whether he was a laborer or in top level of management.

His personnel records would reflect that he was fired for cause.

Elmo

....

The presence or absence of the unauthorized item in the car became irrelevant only at the time he lied to me. Then it would not matter any more, since both he and his car would be gone forever. I was schooled by both my parents and my alma mater that "lying, cheating and stealing" were the super no-nos. When one does any one of those he ends my trust in him, our friendship and our relationship.

Well, I'm quite sure I would not like to work for an employer with this attitude. Also unless the employee handbook or contract specified telling the truth about something non-job related was a term of employment, then the personnel record entry might be actionable in a lawsuit. Perhaps a better answer would be "None of your business". Since it isn't. Lying is generally morally wrong, as is stealing, and killing/murder ....but personally I believe more in the context of God's commandments vs. the Service Academies'. We can debate the meaning of ...bear(ing) false witness against thy neighbor some other time.

In my hypothetical example, the employer is not the government/military. So I didn't swear an oath to their employee handbook like I did to the country/constitution when I was in the military. If my employer wants to search my car for violations of their company policy, they will do it without my cooperation or consent. I don't feel any moral obligation to uphold terms of employment that are unrelated to the performance of my duties for said employer. I'm not saying that you should take lightly violating company policy that could result in your dismissal, but I reject the implication that it is always immoral.

Breaking my window to get in really shouldn't be an option...and as mentioned may constitute burglary or at least vandalism and civilly you may have a pretty good case for "trespass to chattels".

[Scott in Houston]

Game set match. Nice post Scott.

[Jumping Frog]

they will do it without my cooperation or consent. I don't feel any moral obligation to uphold terms of employment that are unrelated to the performance of my duties for said employer. I'm not saying that you should take lightly violating company policy that could result in your dismissal, but I reject the implication that it is always immoral.

Breaking my window to get in really shouldn't be an option...and as mentioned may constitute burglary or at least vandalism and civilly you may have a pretty good case for "trespass to chattels".

I don't look at an employee policy manual as something moral or immoral. It simply describes the company's expectations for employee behavior. If someone doesn't want to adhere to the provisions, then they can quit, or if they need/want the job they can keep their mouth shut and hope that it doesn't become an issue. Similarly, when a company fires someone for violating the policy handbook, that has no bearing on whether the offending action is chargeable as a crime or not. It simply means the company considers the employment relationship terminated.

As far as vehicle searches go, there are two categories of searches:

1. Criminal Behavior: where the company has evidence or reasonable suspicion that the employee has stolen items within the vehicle. For example, a warehouse company and the employee has a bunch of stolen iPods from the warehouse. That is a criminal matter, and we would typically have the police (or FBI) involved with the search. If the employee refuses the search, we would have evidence (probably video) to swearing a complaint and having the police obtain a search warrant. The very act of refusing the search means the employee is fired, regardless of whether anything is found or not.
2. Violations of company policy: where the company is doing a search for items in violation of company policy, for example, firearms. In this case, the employee can refuse the search and the company has no legal basis to conduct a search. There would be no "windows broken" or forced search. Doesn't matter, the employee will be fired for refusing the search.

For people working in large businesses who want or need to keep their job with an HR department that is organized enough to actually create an employee manual, I recommend following something I have named as "Tweed's Rule vis-a-vis Employers", after someone who is a 30+ year employee relations executive and knows how corporate America works. It reads as:

Tweed's rules vis-a-vis any employment situation, carefully developed after 30+ years in HR go as follows:

1. ) I do not own a gun, and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.

2.) I do not want to own a gun and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.

3.) I don't want to talk to anyone who owns a gun, and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.

4.) If someone is talking about guns, I shall walk away, and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.

5.) My hobbies are very interesting and entertaining, but, I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.

6.) The hobbies of my significant other, (if any) and children (if any) are very interesting and entertaining and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.

I think anyone reading this will see a trend developing.

This advice is free.

Note that I qualified this as large businesses and a job you want to keep. So don't start arguing how you work in a small business with a boss who shoots IDPA with you every weekend, or you feel like you would rather quit and work in a firearms-friendly workplace. Those are obviously different cases.

In my case, I worked for a large company in a previous life where I was not smart enough to instinctively follow Tweed's law. So I discussed gun-related stuff with other gun enthusiasts at work. I did not realize at the time that I was overheard by some real anti-gunner women in the office. One day, they overheard me in an argument with a fellow manager and called the corporate office to complain to HR that they were frightened because I was angry and a gun nut who brought guns into work. It didn't matter that I had never brought a gun into the office, I was still given a "final warning notice".

If a company goes through lay-offs, for example, items like warning notices can mean the difference between you getting let go versus the other guy.

[b322da]

Game set match. Nice post Scott.

It is better to debate a question without
settling it, than to settle a question without
debating it. --Joseph Joubert

Elmo

[Barbi Q]

Employers like that are another reason I'm happy I work in the family business.