Re: Fired because of gun
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:26 pm
Wow! How old is that sign?TxBlonde wrote:
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
Wow! How old is that sign?TxBlonde wrote:
Based on the amount of fading and corrosion and the language of the Vernon's Civil Statutes, I would guess ca. 1997.Shoot Straight wrote:Wow! How old is that sign?TxBlonde wrote:
His old manager admitted to no policy before that day and none till 3 days after that date of fireKeith B wrote:Actually, no they don't. There are people fired all of the time, right or wrong, for reasons that don't make sense. At that point you have to do what you are doing now and fight it. And, while you may get an arbitrator or judge to rule in your favor, the problem will now be that your husband would have to return to a potentially hostile work environment if he goes back to that company. And you can surely bet that they will tell him he can't have a gun on property with witnesses in place when told and they have 30.06 signs now posted.TxBlonde wrote:Last Time I checked someone has to tell you that you can not have a gun before they can just fire you for having one
Bottom line, sounds like he was unjustly fired, but burden of proof will be on you guys with a costly legal battle. Good luck on the case!
The sign looks a lot older than that.TxBlonde wrote:His old manager admitted to no policy before that day and none till 3 days after that date of fire
No policy on the books and the sign on that door was from previous business owner that was left there for years. This is my understanding.Shoot Straight wrote:The sign looks a lot older than that.TxBlonde wrote:His old manager admitted to no policy before that day and none till 3 days after that date of fire
If the company kept some old "No Smoking" signs, does that mean it's allowed to smoke inside? What about handicapped parking signs that date to a previous business?Beiruty wrote:No policy on the books and the sign on that door was from previous business owner that was left there for years. This is my understanding.Shoot Straight wrote:The sign looks a lot older than that.TxBlonde wrote:His old manager admitted to no policy before that day and none till 3 days after that date of fire
As far as the sign, it is not tricky. As the OP stated, this sign was on a building at a location where the driver did not work. It's irrelevant.Beiruty wrote:Most likely the OP could claim:
1) The sign is an old sign and unenforceable. (Does not help for the firing case)
2) Not all doors were posted.
3) No written policy was given when joined the company.
I know it is really tricky case, the OP has to show that he was dismissed not for the CC but because he refused to drive an overloaded truck.
I understand that, but they can still fire someone for doing something even they don't like even if it is legal and they never told them not to do it.TxBlonde wrote:His old manager admitted to no policy before that day and none till 3 days after that date of fireKeith B wrote:Actually, no they don't. There are people fired all of the time, right or wrong, for reasons that don't make sense. At that point you have to do what you are doing now and fight it. And, while you may get an arbitrator or judge to rule in your favor, the problem will now be that your husband would have to return to a potentially hostile work environment if he goes back to that company. And you can surely bet that they will tell him he can't have a gun on property with witnesses in place when told and they have 30.06 signs now posted.TxBlonde wrote:Last Time I checked someone has to tell you that you can not have a gun before they can just fire you for having one
Bottom line, sounds like he was unjustly fired, but burden of proof will be on you guys with a costly legal battle. Good luck on the case!
Yeah...unions are doing a bang up job. The only thing I've ever seen unions do is promote bloated contracts, allow people to work less efficiently while demanding more money, allow for the production of inferior products, and decrease morale....but that's another thread. We don't want to highjack this one.Ecrevisse wrote:And people wonder why there are unions.
IMO, drinking during the workday (even at lunch) is one of those common sense things that you should know is questionable behavior (especially if your job includes operating anything more dangerous than a calculator) unless the company tells you it's ok, rather than the other way around.Keith B wrote:For instance, I know of a case where a company fired an individual for drinking while at lunch.
That's true if we're talking about him being prosecuted for carrying, but the cops didn't arrest him and it doesn't sound like the DA charged him with a crime. The 30.06 notice rules only apply to the crime of criminal trespass by a license holder, and some premises covered by the 46.035 law.TxBlonde wrote:Apparently the Manager of Human Relations had a sign with a picture of a gun with a circle and slashed line through it in her office, on the floor, but that sign only applies to unlicensed individuals that go into that office. The other Police Officers report there is nothing posted to prevent any licensed individual from carrying concealed on the property.