Jump to content


Photo

Employer policy for vehicles


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 Winrod80

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 18

Posted 03 March 2018 - 11:32 PM

I have a question about an employer policy. If an employer policy says that the employees can not have a gun inside of their car on the employers property, even if you are a legal ccw holder, can they take action against you if they found out You keep your ccw in your car?

#2 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,170 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 04 March 2018 - 12:08 AM

Are you sure that's their policy? Someone needs to run it by legal because the inside of your car is your property.

But it's an at will state so they could fire you because gun ownership is far from a protected class in Illinois.

#3 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,647 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 04 March 2018 - 12:09 AM

I dont think they can do anything "legally" from a crime or violation of safe harbor perspective but expect they can terminate employment for knowing violation of company policy.

Edited by InterestedBystander, 04 March 2018 - 12:10 AM.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸 "Remember in November" 🗳️

#4 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 460 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 04 March 2018 - 12:14 AM

IANAL, but
  • you need a valid CCL,
  • it has to be a handgun, not a long gun,
  • it has to be your vehicle, not theirs.
Then it depends on
  • the nature of the employer,
  • where/how you keep the firearm in your vehicle.
The full law is 430 ILCS 66/65 Prohibited Areas, but if you have a valid CCL and the vehicle is owned by you, briefly:
  • if the employer is a pre-school, child care facility, government agency (executive, legislative, or judicial), detention or correctional facility, etc., etc., etc., keeping a firearm in a car in the parking lot is prohibited by law; it's not just a matter of employer policy;
  • if the employer is a public or private community college, college, or university, the employer can designate in which parking lots vehicles containing firearms may park, which could be none of them;
  • otherwise the firearm has to be locked out of view; and they cannot prohibit you from carrying in your vehicle.
As others above have said, they may choose to fire you, at which point the issue is employment law, not firearm law.

#5 Terry 9595

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 13

Posted 04 March 2018 - 12:19 AM

How many employers search cars?. Ever hear don't ask - don't tell

Terry K. Bell

 

Member of NRA

Member of ISRA

State of Illinois Licensed Firearm Instructor - 263.000152

State Police Certified Instructor for FCCL

Utah Firearm Instructor  I111295

NRA Law Enforcement Instructor- Handgun, Shotgun and Patrol Rifle

NRA Instructor for

        Certified Home Safety

        Certified Pistol

         Personal Protection In The Home

         Certified Shotgun

         Refuse To Be A Victim

 

NRA Range Safety Officer

Licensed Private Detective

License Security Contractor

 

 

 

 


#6 bmyers

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 04 March 2018 - 06:01 AM

There is a large employer in our area that has such a policy, does parking lot searches and uses dogs. They have terminated employees for everything for drugs in the vehicle, open empty beer cans, bows, long guns, and ammunition found in the vehicle. I have pointed out that their policy goes against state law, they don't care.

 

Yet, if you vehicle gets broken into in the parking lot or damaged, the employer takes zero responsibility. 



#7 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 18,971 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 04 March 2018 - 07:41 AM

There is a large employer in our area that has such a policy, does parking lot searches and uses dogs. They have terminated employees for everything for drugs in the vehicle, open empty beer cans, bows, long guns, and ammunition found in the vehicle. I have pointed out that their policy goes against state law, they don't care.
 
Yet, if you vehicle gets broken into in the parking lot or damaged, the employer takes zero responsibility.



There's an argument to be made that the FCCA creates a mandate requiring everyone in the state, including employers, to allow a licensee to store a firearm in their vehicle unless other law prohibits carry in that location.

Though misleading in many ways, even ICHV recognizes this in one of their publications, stating:
 

Q: Do I have to allow employees that are concealed carry license
holders to carry loaded, concealed guns at work?

A: The law only requires employers to allow guns if they are hidden in
locked vehicles. Employers may prohibit guns in other areas as long as
the owner of the property agrees and the sign is posted.



In its FAQs, ISP states:
 

Q: Can a state agency develop policies that say employees leave them at home or put the weapon in the trunk before coming onto the grounds? Or does the state agency have to accept employees putting the weapon in the trunk before entering the building?
This is an employment law question.

A: The Illinois State Police cannot give legal advice to employers. That said, while the law does not specifically preempt an employer's right to have more restrictive employment policies, it is not clear that an employer can override the parking lot safe haven exemption created by the statute. This would be particularly true for a public employer.



It would be an interesting test to pursue a wrongful termination suit if that employer fired a licensee for following the provisions of the FCCA.


Attached File  concealed_carry_handbook_low.pdf   795.68KB   48 downloads

.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#8 TomKoz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,322 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 04 March 2018 - 08:21 AM

There is a large employer in our area that has such a policy, does parking lot searches and uses dogs. They have terminated employees for everything for drugs in the vehicle, open empty beer cans, bows, long guns, and ammunition found in the vehicle. I have pointed out that their policy goes against state law, they don't care.
 
Yet, if you vehicle gets broken into in the parking lot or damaged, the employer takes zero responsibility.


Please name said “employer”.
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#9 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 12,902 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 04 March 2018 - 08:47 AM

IANAL but if the parking lot is company property they can prohibit it. If you are parked on a public street or lot not owned or controlled by the company, they can’t.

Is there a way you can park outside the company lot?

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#10 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,039 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 04 March 2018 - 11:31 AM



IANAL, but

  • you need a valid CCL,

  • it has to be a handgun, not a long gun,

  • it has to be your vehicle, not theirs.


Then it depends on
  • the nature of the employer,

  • where/how you keep the firearm in your vehicle.


The full law is 430 ILCS 66/65 Prohibited Areas, but if you have a valid CCL and the vehicle is owned by you, briefly:
  • if the employer is a pre-school, child care facility, government agency (executive, legislative, or judicial), detention or correctional facility, etc., etc., etc., keeping a firearm in a car in the parking lot is prohibited by law; it's not just a matter of employer policy;

  • if the employer is a public or private community college, college, or university, the employer can designate in which parking lots vehicles containing firearms may park, which could be none of them;

  • otherwise the firearm has to be locked out of view; and they cannot prohibit you from carrying in your vehicle.


As others above have said, they may choose to fire you, at which point the issue is employment law, not firearm law.

 

 

The law does not forbid a CCL holder from keeping a firearm in their car in the areas you mention. 

Section 65/66 b, the parking lot exception applies, in general.  As you indicate, the law does not address employer/employee policy.

Employers may or may not have the authority to forbid employees to store firearms in their private vehicles in Illinois.  Many other states are more clear on the matter.

 

“    ( b )Notwithstanding subsections (a), (a-5), and (a-10) of this Section except under paragraph (22) or (23) of subsection (a), any licensee prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm into the parking area of a prohibited location specified in subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section shall be permitted to carry a concealed firearm on or about his or her person within a vehicle into the parking area and may store a firearm or ammunition concealed in a case within a locked vehicle or locked container out of plain view within the vehicle in the parking area. A licensee may carry a concealed firearm in the immediate area surrounding his or her vehicle within a prohibited parking lot area only for the limited purpose of storing or retrieving a firearm within the vehicle's trunk. For purposes of this subsection, "case" includes a glove compartment or console that completely encloses the concealed firearm or ammunition, the trunk of the vehicle, or a firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container”.  [I added the underline.]


Edited by Quiet Observer, 04 March 2018 - 11:32 AM.


#11 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,559 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 04 March 2018 - 02:24 PM

The FCCA's sponsor, former Rep Brandon Phelps, did not believe that an employer could by policy prohibit licensees from keeping handguns in their vehicles in the employer's parking lot.

To paraphrase House floor debate-

[Costello(?): Mr Phelps, is there anything in the bill that would allow an employer to prohibit a licensee from keeping their handgun in their car?

Phelps: No, there is not.]

I suspect Mr. Phelps was well aware of what his bill said, and the wording of the parking lot exception was VERY deliberate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#12 BigJim

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,224 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 08

Posted 05 March 2018 - 10:35 AM

A friend works for a big company in the northwest suburbs and they will (and have fired) employees for smoking in their cars while parked in the company lot.  The company says employees may not smoke period including in their own homes.


Big Jim
-----------------------------------------
I will not be commanded,
I will not be controlled
And I will not let my future go on,
without the help of my soul

The Lost Boy - Greg Holden

#13 bmyers

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 05 March 2018 - 10:40 AM

 

There is a large employer in our area that has such a policy, does parking lot searches and uses dogs. They have terminated employees for everything for drugs in the vehicle, open empty beer cans, bows, long guns, and ammunition found in the vehicle. I have pointed out that their policy goes against state law, they don't care.
 
Yet, if you vehicle gets broken into in the parking lot or damaged, the employer takes zero responsibility.


Please name said “employer”.

 

No.

 

Yes, I have had discussion with their management staff and they standby their decision, Even though I disagree with them, I will not put my company at risk of losing business there by naming that business that we do work for. 


Edited by bmyers, 05 March 2018 - 10:48 AM.


#14 Cerus

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,272 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 16

Posted 05 March 2018 - 02:36 PM

The company says employees may not smoke period including in their own homes.

  

I love to see them try to fire someone for that. Would never have to work again.

No.
 
Yes, I have had discussion with their management staff and they standby their decision, Even though I disagree with them, I will not put my company at risk of losing business there by naming that business that we do work for.


Unless it’s in a signed policy book they’re committing a crime by searching vehicles.

#15 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,170 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 05 March 2018 - 02:45 PM

The company says employees may not smoke period including in their own homes.

  
I love to see them try to fire someone for that. Would never have to work again.

No.
 
Yes, I have had discussion with their management staff and they standby their decision, Even though I disagree with them, I will not put my company at risk of losing business there by naming that business that we do work for.


Unless it’s in a signed policy book they’re committing a crime by searching vehicles.
In employment law its all about protected classes. Smokers just like gun owners are not protected classes. I don't know about Illinois but quite a few states allow employers to choose not to hire smokers. Some companies even screen nicotine on their drug tests.

#16 bmyers

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 05 March 2018 - 02:49 PM

 

The company says employees may not smoke period including in their own homes.

  

I love to see them try to fire someone for that. Would never have to work again.

No.
 
Yes, I have had discussion with their management staff and they standby their decision, Even though I disagree with them, I will not put my company at risk of losing business there by naming that business that we do work for.


Unless it’s in a signed policy book they’re committing a crime by searching vehicles.

 

It is covered in their orientation that they do with all new hires.Plus, you have to sign off to get a parking pass, which you agree to the search. 

 

You always have the option not to work there.

 

Our company does a lot of work there, so even though I don't like it, we fall inline with it.



#17 ragsbo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,226 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 05

Posted 05 March 2018 - 04:52 PM

If it is their property and their policy you are under their control.



#18 Cerus

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,272 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 16

Posted 05 March 2018 - 05:33 PM

The company says employees may not smoke period including in their own homes.

  
I love to see them try to fire someone for that. Would never have to work again.


No.
 
Yes, I have had discussion with their management staff and they standby their decision, Even though I disagree with them, I will not put my company at risk of losing business there by naming that business that we do work for.


Unless it’s in a signed policy book they’re committing a crime by searching vehicles.


In employment law its all about protected classes. Smokers just like gun owners are not protected classes. I don't know about Illinois but quite a few states allow employers to choose not to hire smokers. Some companies even screen nicotine on their drug tests.



If you aren’t doing it on their property they have no business telling you what you can or cannot do. Smoking is not illegal. Until it is, they’ve got no leg to stand on.

#19 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,170 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 05 March 2018 - 11:28 PM

https://www.precheck...hcare-employers

Scroll down to the laws section, certain states allow exactly that. Luckily IL isn't yet.

#20 Cerus

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,272 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 16

Posted 05 March 2018 - 11:47 PM

https://www.precheck...hcare-employers
Scroll down to the laws section, certain states allow exactly that. Luckily IL isn't yet.


Workplace bans and testing are a far cry from terminating employment. I question the entire article since they start off with bogus stats. What does productivity and smoke breaks have to do with anything? A break is a break. If you’re allowed a break under state law or employer policy then what you do on those breaks is irrelevant. If someone is being paid for their breaks or taking longer than allowed that has zero to do with smoking.

The healthcare costs are also hightly debatable. Not to say that smoking is good for you but there are no clear links between smoking and any health issue. There isn’t a single illness that is exclusive to smokers or non smokers. It’s nothing more than a guess.

I cannot see any employer winning a wrongful termination suit in any state for something someone does at home. Employee policies are not always 100% legal, signed or not. There are countless contracts out there with unenforceable clauses. It’s just that most people don’t fight them.

#21 spaceman spiff

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 15

Posted 06 March 2018 - 12:34 AM

When I got my CCL I carried at work under the impression that carrying a firearm while on duty was in violation of company policy. That is until I looked a little closer at our policy.

 

From our policy: "an individual has violated these guidelines when in possession of a firearm or other lethal weapons while on ______ premises unless allowed by law..."

 

The policy was last updated in 2013, prior to the FCCA, and we're not posted. So according to the policy, if I have a CCL and am allowed by law I can carry. Some of my employees who I have gotten to know are aware that I'm a gun guy and some have asked if I carry, I always deny it anyway because we're an at-will employer and I don't want to give anybody any motivation to update the policy. 

 

I work in the restaurant industry. I started as a delivery driver, some places I went to felt much safer being armed, then moved into management, where when I'm alone in the office late at night doing paperwork feels much safer while carrying.


NRA Life Member

ISRA Member

GOA Member

Aspiring Law Enforcement, Looking Forward to Taking the Oath to Uphold and Defend


#22 bcook619

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 639 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 13

Posted 06 March 2018 - 09:07 AM

 

There is a large employer in our area that has such a policy, does parking lot searches and uses dogs. They have terminated employees for everything for drugs in the vehicle, open empty beer cans, bows, long guns, and ammunition found in the vehicle. I have pointed out that their policy goes against state law, they don't care.
 
Yet, if you vehicle gets broken into in the parking lot or damaged, the employer takes zero responsibility.


Please name said “employer”.

 

Conoco Phillips does this



#23 BigJim

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,224 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 08

Posted 06 March 2018 - 09:45 AM

 

 

The company says employees may not smoke period including in their own homes.

  
I love to see them try to fire someone for that. Would never have to work again
Unless it’s in a signed policy book they’re committing a crime by searching vehicles.
In employment law its all about protected classes. Smokers just like gun owners are not protected classes. I don't know about Illinois but quite a few states allow employers to choose not to hire smokers. Some companies even screen nicotine on their drug tests.

 

My friend has to submit to random unannounced whiz quiz's which include nicotine and alcohol screening.  If you test positive for any banned substance it's ground for termination as is a BAC value over a certain level.  They also gave smokers a year to give up smoking and made consoling available to employees having issues quitting.  When the policy went into affect every employee was given a hard copy to read and then had to sign that they read it, understood it and agreed to it.

 

BTW the way it was explain is if you go home and smoke a cigarette the nicotine will show up in your urine for a couple of days.  If you smoke a pack-a-day it can remain in your urine for a week maybe more.  So if you smoke at home you can fail the test a day or two later.


Big Jim
-----------------------------------------
I will not be commanded,
I will not be controlled
And I will not let my future go on,
without the help of my soul

The Lost Boy - Greg Holden

#24 bmyers

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 06 March 2018 - 09:49 AM

 

 

There is a large employer in our area that has such a policy, does parking lot searches and uses dogs. They have terminated employees for everything for drugs in the vehicle, open empty beer cans, bows, long guns, and ammunition found in the vehicle. I have pointed out that their policy goes against state law, they don't care.
 
Yet, if you vehicle gets broken into in the parking lot or damaged, the employer takes zero responsibility.


Please name said “employer”.

 

Conoco Phillips does this

 

:)



#25 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,835 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 07 March 2018 - 08:55 AM

My friend has to submit to random unannounced whiz quiz's which include nicotine and alcohol screening.  If you test positive for any banned substance it's ground for termination as is a BAC value over a certain level.  They also gave smokers a year to give up smoking and made consoling available to employees having issues quitting.  When the policy went into affect every employee was given a hard copy to read and then had to sign that they read it, understood it and agreed to it.

 

BTW the way it was explain is if you go home and smoke a cigarette the nicotine will show up in your urine for a couple of days.  If you smoke a pack-a-day it can remain in your urine for a week maybe more.  So if you smoke at home you can fail the test a day or two later.

 

 

I'm not sure how that is legal.  It certainly isn't right...  I would think you could win a unlawful termination suit if a company was stupid enough to say they fired you for smoking while not at work


NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
CCW - 50 State Firearm Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)


#26 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,170 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 07 March 2018 - 09:44 AM

My friend has to submit to random unannounced whiz quiz's which include nicotine and alcohol screening.  If you test positive for any banned substance it's ground for termination as is a BAC value over a certain level.  They also gave smokers a year to give up smoking and made consoling available to employees having issues quitting.  When the policy went into affect every employee was given a hard copy to read and then had to sign that they read it, understood it and agreed to it.
 
BTW the way it was explain is if you go home and smoke a cigarette the nicotine will show up in your urine for a couple of days.  If you smoke a pack-a-day it can remain in your urine for a week maybe more.  So if you smoke at home you can fail the test a day or two later.

 
I'm not sure how that is legal.  It certainly isn't right...  I would think you could win a unlawful termination suit if a company was stupid enough to say they fired you for smoking while not at work.
Again, unless it's a protected class most "at will" states can terminate an employee for anything deemed a detractor from the corporate cause.

Most companies that enforce no smoking policies inside and outside work are Healthcare. Two things can be argued. If nicotine shows up in a drug test you are under its influence, which does have physical and physiological effects. The second issue is corporate image. If you run an anti smoking nonprofit or are a head doctor a company could argue that person seen smoking outside of work damages the company's image and goes against its mission statement.

Now why smokers are not a protected class but fat people seem to win either protection or lawsuits on this makes no sense. Somehow gun shaming and smoker shaming is perfectly acceptable, but fat shaming is not despite causing way more deaths.

That's why employment law is such a gray area, it changes with what large corporate legal teams and politicians deem acceptable. Yet actuarial justification on insurance policies are totally fair game.

Edited by chicagoresident, 07 March 2018 - 09:54 AM.


#27 BigJim

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,224 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 08

Posted 07 March 2018 - 10:21 AM

 

My friend has to submit to random unannounced whiz quiz's which include nicotine and alcohol screening.  If you test positive for any banned substance it's ground for termination as is a BAC value over a certain level.  They also gave smokers a year to give up smoking and made consoling available to employees having issues quitting.  When the policy went into affect every employee was given a hard copy to read and then had to sign that they read it, understood it and agreed to it.

 

BTW the way it was explain is if you go home and smoke a cigarette the nicotine will show up in your urine for a couple of days.  If you smoke a pack-a-day it can remain in your urine for a week maybe more.  So if you smoke at home you can fail the test a day or two later.

 

 

I'm not sure how that is legal.  It certainly isn't right...  I would think you could win a unlawful termination suit if a company was stupid enough to say they fired you for smoking while not at work

 

They don't fire you for smoking while not at work.  They fire you for failing the drug test which is legal.  Nothing in your termination says where or when you smoked, only that you tested positive for nicotine which is a violation of company policy. 

 

The same is true for MJ if you don't have a medical MJ card.  If you smoke a joint Saturday evening in your home you will test positive for MJ Monday morning and you can be fired for testing positive for MJ.


Big Jim
-----------------------------------------
I will not be commanded,
I will not be controlled
And I will not let my future go on,
without the help of my soul

The Lost Boy - Greg Holden

#28 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,170 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 07 March 2018 - 10:43 AM

My friend has to submit to random unannounced whiz quiz's which include nicotine and alcohol screening.  If you test positive for any banned substance it's ground for termination as is a BAC value over a certain level.  They also gave smokers a year to give up smoking and made consoling available to employees having issues quitting.  When the policy went into affect every employee was given a hard copy to read and then had to sign that they read it, understood it and agreed to it.
 
BTW the way it was explain is if you go home and smoke a cigarette the nicotine will show up in your urine for a couple of days.  If you smoke a pack-a-day it can remain in your urine for a week maybe more.  So if you smoke at home you can fail the test a day or two later.

 
I'm not sure how that is legal.  It certainly isn't right...  I would think you could win a unlawful termination suit if a company was stupid enough to say they fired you for smoking while not at work.
They don't fire you for smoking while not at work.  They fire you for failing the drug test which is legal.  Nothing in your termination says where or when you smoked, only that you tested positive for nicotine which is a violation of company policy. 
 
The same is true for MJ if you don't have a medical MJ card.  If you smoke a joint Saturday evening in your home you will test positive for MJ Monday morning and you can be fired for testing positive for MJ.
Even for medical MJ courts in some states have ruled you can be fired http://time.com/3921...juana-work-law/

This is the problem when you have a patchwork of state and federal laws at odds with each other.

#29 papa

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,762 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 07

Posted 07 March 2018 - 11:30 AM

 

My friend has to submit to random unannounced whiz quiz's which include nicotine and alcohol screening.  If you test positive for any banned substance it's ground for termination as is a BAC value over a certain level.  They also gave smokers a year to give up smoking and made consoling available to employees having issues quitting.  When the policy went into affect every employee was given a hard copy to read and then had to sign that they read it, understood it and agreed to it.

 

BTW the way it was explain is if you go home and smoke a cigarette the nicotine will show up in your urine for a couple of days.  If you smoke a pack-a-day it can remain in your urine for a week maybe more.  So if you smoke at home you can fail the test a day or two later.

 

 

I'm not sure how that is legal.  It certainly isn't right...  I would think you could win a unlawful termination suit if a company was stupid enough to say they fired you for smoking while not at work

 

If you have signed the papers that state such then you have agreed to the terms  unfortunately.



#30 BradS

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,864 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 13

Posted 07 March 2018 - 01:47 PM

There is a large employer in our area that has such a policy, does parking lot searches and uses dogs. They have terminated employees for everything for drugs in the vehicle, open empty beer cans, bows, long guns, and ammunition found in the vehicle. I have pointed out that their policy goes against state law, they don't care.
 
Yet, if you vehicle gets broken into in the parking lot or damaged, the employer takes zero responsibility.

If it is the same employer that I am thinking of, the place is also listed as some Homeland Security port and is under the Feds/Coast Guard jurisdiction.

EDIT: I read a little more, and YES that was the exact employer I was thinking of. By the way, it's just Phillips 66 noe and NOT Conoco Phillips.

I first worked there in the summer of 2003. A contractor (pipe fitter, boiler maker, carpenter, laborer, or electrician) got fired from there back then for having an empty shotgun shell in the back of his pick up.

I don't know how they do it, but they supposedly have "gun sniffing" dogs. I always wondered if a dog would hit on my vehicle after a range trip.

Edited by BradS, 07 March 2018 - 01:55 PM.

my target stands classified thread:

http://illinoiscarry...topic=40920&hl=




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users