TexasCHLforum.com

TxBlonde wrote:

Wow! How old is that sign?

Shoot Straight wrote:

TxBlonde wrote:

Wow! How old is that sign?

Based on the amount of fading and corrosion and the language of the Vernon's Civil Statutes, I would guess ca. 1997.

Well I would say before 2006 for sure

Keith B wrote:

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

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.

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!

His old manager admitted to no policy before that day and none till 3 days after that date of fire

TxBlonde wrote:His old manager admitted to no policy before that day and none till 3 days after that date of fire

The sign looks a lot older than that.

Shoot Straight wrote:

TxBlonde wrote:His old manager admitted to no policy before that day and none till 3 days after that date of fire

The sign looks a lot older than that.

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.

Beiruty wrote:

Shoot Straight wrote:

TxBlonde wrote:His old manager admitted to no policy before that day and none till 3 days after that date of fire

The sign looks a lot older than that.

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.

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?

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.

The sign was not even at the building where he was fired

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.

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.

TxBlonde wrote:

Keith B wrote:

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

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.

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!

His old manager admitted to no policy before that day and none till 3 days after that date of fire

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.

For instance, I know of a case where a company fired an individual for drinking while at lunch. He was basically on his own time and when he came back he was not intoxicated per se as he had only had one beer, but he had alcohol on his breath. There was no written policy stating you couldn't drink at the company and no one had ever verbally told him he couldn't drink at lunch. However, he was still fired for doing so because a co-worker complained that he had been drinking as they cold smell it. He did fight it for awhile, but an arbitrator sided with the company. He basically ran out of money on legal fees and ended up dropping the case with an agreement that the previous company would only state he was released due to irreconcilable differences if asked about his termination.

Ecrevisse wrote:And people wonder why there are unions.

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.

As to the OP, according to your side of the story, those guys need to be paying for your house and a few future houses. Get a lawyer.

No lawyer for you = no lesson learned for them.

Keith B wrote:For instance, I know of a case where a company fired an individual for drinking while at lunch.

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.

We have a Lawyer, just bouncing off ideas off people that are familiar with Guns and laws.

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.

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.

If we're talking about company policy, I'm trying to think of a reason the HR manager would have a gunbuster sign, even if it wasn't prominently displayed, unless the company had a no guns policy.

Good luck. Hopefully you'll get a pro-gun jury. Let us know how it turns out.