Question about workplace CHL

[The Annoyed Man]

I just started a new job today (after having been out of work since 11/16/07), and as part of the process, I've had to bring home a copy of the employee manual, and then sign a paper saying I've read it, and turn it all back in tomorrow. Let me explain that the business is located in a small office building which has a common parking area for employees of the various businesses located in the building and their customers. My employer occupies about 1/3 of the building, and is not the building owner.

In the "Violence & Weapons" section of the employee manual is found the following paragraph:

Any use or possession of weapons, whether illegal or not, is prohibited on company property, or while on company business. This includes knives, guns, martial arts weapons, or any other object that is used as a weapon. Any employee caught possessing a weapon will be disciplined, up to and including termination.

My questions are:

1. Does this wording actually override whatever privileges I might have under a CHL?
2. If so, does this wording bar me from securing my weapon in the common parking lot attached to the building?

Thanks in advance for your input.

[seamusTX]

1. Yes.
2. No.

Your employer can fire you for almost anything -- smoking tobacco on your free time, hair, tattoos, jewelry, clothing. Many employers fire employees for having weapons while on duty and not on company property.

You cannot be criminally prosecuted under such circumstances.

You are fortunate that the policy manual does not say that you cannot have weapons in your car in the parking lot. They can't practically enforce such a rule when parking is a common area with other tenants of a building.

- Jim

[Keith B]

Just be sure the building is not leased wholly by your company and sub-let back to the other tenants. Also, I would ascertain that the parking lot is actually fully shared by all tenants and you don't have a specific section dedicated to your company. If I am not mistaken, 'company property' can be interpreted as any sub-let parcel of which the leaser has control of through their rental agreement, and in turn could prohibit you from having the gun even in the parking lot per company policy.

[flintknapper]

Just be sure the building is not leased wholly by your company and sub-let back to the other tenants. Also, I would ascertain that the parking lot is actually fully shared by all tenants and you don't have a specific section dedicated to your company. If I am not mistaken, 'company property' can be interpreted as any sub-let parcel of which the leaser has control of through their rental agreement, and in turn could prohibit you from having the gun even in the parking lot per company policy.

This is my understanding too.

[Hyunchback]

Where do I have to go to get an employer with a manual reading "If you have a CHL we expect you to carry while on company property and on company time."

[seamusTX]

Where do I have to go to get an employer with a manual reading "If you have a CHL we expect you to carry while on company property and on company time."

I guess you have to get a job with Mr. Charles Cotton. I haven't heard of that policy anywhere else.

- Jim

[jclif1995]

I generally leave my snub locked up in the glove. I do carry a Kimber mace device. On those occasions that I work odd hours and the lot generally empty, I may take it in along with the mace.

[The Annoyed Man]

Just be sure the building is not leased wholly by your company and sub-let back to the other tenants. Also, I would ascertain that the parking lot is actually fully shared by all tenants and you don't have a specific section dedicated to your company. If I am not mistaken, 'company property' can be interpreted as any sub-let parcel of which the leaser has control of through their rental agreement, and in turn could prohibit you from having the gun even in the parking lot per company policy.

My new employer told me yesterday that the owner of the building is in one of the other offices, so I doubt that he leases the whole property, and then sub-leases an office back to the owner. The parking area is common to all the offices, and none of the spaces are marked as reserved for any one particular business.

Since the lot is not specifically mentioned in the policy, I'll take that to mean that I may secure my weapon in my car, which, BTW, is clearly visible to me at all times out the front windows which are floor to ceiling and run the width of the office.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Company weapons policy is an issue many members face and the subject comes up frequently. In my view, the only real issue is whether or not TPC §30.06 is triggered by the company policy. If it is, then you can be arrested and prosecuted.

Texas is an employment-at-will state, meaning any employee can be fired for any reason or no reason whatsoever. The exceptions are few and include firing someone because they are in a protected class (age, race, gender, etc.), firing someone for refusing to commit an illegal act, or firing someone in violation of an enforceable employment contract.

Chas.

[Keith B]

Company weapons policy is an issue many members face and the subject comes up frequently. In my view, the only real issue is whether or not TPC §30.06 is triggered by the company policy. If it is, then you can be arrested and prosecuted.

Texas is an employment-at-will state, meaning any employee can be fired for any reason or no reason whatsoever. The exceptions are few and include firing someone because they are in a protected class (age, race, gender, etc.), firing someone for refusing to commit an illegal act, or firing someone in violation of an enforceable employment contract.

Chas.

Great point on the 'at-will' employment Charles. Even if the parking lot is owned and controlled by the building owner, if you employer finds out you have a weapon in your car and are not happy with that fact, they could potentailly fire you over it. Really not a lot you can do other than try to reason with them to get your job back.

I guess they can fire you even for being ugly. I am glad my employer doesn't do that or I would have been gone a LONG time ago!! However, you may want to be careful TAM (refering to your sig line photo!!)

[M9FAN]

I generally leave my snub locked up in the glove.

+1.

[Kalrog]

1. NO
2. NO

It does not override your CHL rights. You can still legally carry. They could fire you. But they can not prosecute you. And since they could fire you for pretty much anything, the question is really one of legality and not one of company policy (my thoughts).

[Skiprr]

1. NO
2. NO

It does not override your CHL rights. You can still legally carry. They could fire you. But they can not prosecute you. And since they could fire you for pretty much anything, the question is really one of legality and not one of company policy (my thoughts).

Well, there's a catch in there. Remember that if you are given notice orally that firearms are not permitted on the premises, that sets precedence for 30.06. Written notification has to conform to the standardized language of 30.06; the oral notice must come from someone in authority over the premises, but does not need to conform to any specific wording.

My own employer gets around this by having employees sign a statement that they have been "told" about, and understand, the policies.

[boomerang]

Unless the paper specifies what they "told" you, it's still he said she said.

That's why many companies have written policies.

[Skiprr]

Unless the paper specifies what they "told" you, it's still he said she said.

That's why many companies have written policies.

Please reread the thread, Boomer. I think you've got it pretty much reversed.

As Charles noted, Texas is a right-to-work state; so an employer may fire an employee for just about any reason other than the exceptions (protected class, requirement to commit an illegal act, etc.). So a written--or even oral--policy is not necessary for any termination that does not involve criminal trespass prosecution.

A company's written policy, in order to invoke 30.06 for purposes of criminal trespass against CHL's, MUST explicitly use the wording in 30.06(3)(A); the terms of notification by written communication are defined. Unless a company's written policies include the exact language of 30.06(3)(A), the written notification alone is not ground for criminal prosecution.

Oral notification is not systemized in 30.06. The "owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner" can give effective notice under 30.06 by simply telling you in the hallway, "Ya know, no guns are not allowed here."

Ergo, having a written, published company policy--which doesn't conform to the exact wording of 30.06(3)(A)--can be prosecutable grounds, IMHO and IANAL, by having employees sign a statement that they have been "told" of and agree to said policy.

At least the Fortune 500 company I work for thinks so, and their "weapons" policies are even more restrictive than the company The Annoyed Man is going to work for.