The Refinery I work at Still will not revise its policy

[tatzilla]

I work for a petroleum refinery in texas City, Tx. The local and corporate policy prohibits having my firearm even in the parking lot. I have made them aware of the new law and asked when the policy will be revised. I am a CHL holder. I am being given the "runaround" with excuses about the legal team is addressing the issue. I am being told that the old policy is in effect until the company says otherwise. What are my options here?

[johnson0317]

I think you are in between a rock and a hard place. Pressing your employer will only make you the sore thumb. There is another thread about this and I copied the reply that apostate gave, it is in red:

Here's how I read it:

If someone doesn't have a CHL, the refinery [1] can prohibit them from having a firearm in their vehicle anywhere on the property.

If an employee does have a CHL, the refinery can prohibit them from having a firearm in special parking [2] but not in other parking areas.


[1] For example. More generally, "property owned or leased by a chemical manufacturer or oil and gas refiner with an air authorization under Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code, and on which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials"

[2] special parking = "parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees" within "a secured and restricted area:
(i) that contains the physical plant;
(ii) that is not open to the public; and
(iii) the ingress into which is constantly monitored by security personnel."

[Jusster]

Personally, I probably wouldn’t have said anything to them at all. Just carried under the new law following the rules applied to Chemical Plants. If their “policy” is out dated that’s on them. Now if I knew for a fact that they do routine searches, then I might reconsider because I can’t afford to be unemployed right now

Just my 2 cents,

Jusster

[Bart]

Assuming you're not upper management and not in the legal department, you have two main options. You can follow the policy or ignore it.

If you follow the policy, it's status quo. If you ignore it and keep a firearm in your car, there's two possibilities. They can ask to search your car or the subject may never come up.

If the subject never comes up, there's no problem. If they ask to search, you have two options. You can refuse or agree.

If you refuse, they won't find the gun. They may fire you for something else, but not for the gun. If you consent and they search and find the gun, there are two possibilities. They can take disciplinary action or follow the law.

If they follow the law, there's no problem. If they take disciplinary action, you have two choices. You can accept it or fight it. If you accept it, that's the end of it. If you fight it, then you have to decide how you're going to fight it, but there are so many forks in the road getting there, you can cross that bridge when you come to it.

[The Annoyed Man]

Assuming you're not upper management and not in the legal department, you have two main options. You can follow the policy or ignore it.

If you follow the policy, it's status quo. If you ignore it and keep a firearm in your car, there's two possibilities. They can ask to search your car or the subject may never come up.

If the subject never comes up, there's no problem. If they ask to search, you have two options. You can refuse or agree.

If you refuse, they won't find the gun. They may fire you for something else, but not for the gun. If you consent and they search and find the gun, there are two possibilities. They can take disciplinary action or follow the law.

If they follow the law, there's no problem. If they take disciplinary action, you have two choices. You can accept it or fight it. If you accept it, that's the end of it. If you fight it, then you have to decide how you're going to fight it, but there are so many forks in the road getting there, you can cross that bridge when you come to it.

This.

However, you've already made a major tactical error by bringing it to their attention. The smartest thing to have done would have been to simply to start securing your weapon in your car, pursuant to Texas State Law, which was written to protect your right as a CHL holder to do exactly that. After all, your company's policy is in violation of the law, not you, and you are not in any way required to act contrary to state law simply to fulfill their own paranoid fantasies. Had you remained silent on the subject, you would have never had to deal with it until they found out about your weapon and confronted you about it. As long as you remained silent, they would not find out. And if they had found out by some other means and confronted you, simply providing them with a copy of SB321 would be all the defense you need. They cannot require you to reveal your CHL status to them. They cannot access the DPS database to find out independently if you have one. That database is accessible only to law-enforcement, and only then for law-enforcement purposes. Therefore, they cannot legitimately know about your CHL unless you tell them.

So, you have made yourself into the nail that sticks up. The corporate lawyers will now do whatever they can to pound it back down.

Silence is golden.

[apostate]

I work for a petroleum refinery in texas City, Tx. The local and corporate policy prohibits having my firearm even in the parking lot. I have made them aware of the new law and asked when the policy will be revised. I am a CHL holder. I am being given the "runaround" with excuses about the legal team is addressing the issue. I am being told that the old policy is in effect until the company says otherwise. What are my options here?

Do you park in a lot open to the public or inside the restricted/secure area?

[johnson0317]

TAM,

Ouch, but right on.

RJ

[C-dub]

I work for a petroleum refinery in texas City, Tx. The local and corporate policy prohibits having my firearm even in the parking lot. I have made them aware of the new law and asked when the policy will be revised. I am a CHL holder. I am being given the "runaround" with excuses about the legal team is addressing the issue. I am being told that the old policy is in effect until the company says otherwise. What are my options here?

Do you park in a lot open to the public or inside the restricted/secure area?

That is the million dollar question. The company may not have to change their policy. If the parking lot is within a secured area that also contains the plant and is guarded 24/7 then you are out of luck.

[tatzilla]

I didn't tell them I have a CHL. The parking lot is public. They do random searches with dogs a couple times per year. I will just execercise my rights and deal with the dogs if they find it. Thanks for the replies

[Oldgringo]

Assuming you're not upper management and not in the legal department, you have two main options. You can follow the policy or ignore it.

If you follow the policy, it's status quo. If you ignore it and keep a firearm in your car, there's two possibilities. They can ask to search your car or the subject may never come up.

If the subject never comes up, there's no problem. If they ask to search, you have two options. You can refuse or agree.

If you refuse, they won't find the gun. They may fire you for something else, but not for the gun. If you consent and they search and find the gun, there are two possibilities. They can take disciplinary action or follow the law.

If they follow the law, there's no problem. If they take disciplinary action, you have two choices. You can accept it or fight it. If you accept it, that's the end of it. If you fight it, then you have to decide how you're going to fight it, but there are so many forks in the road getting there, you can cross that bridge when you come to it.

This.

However, you've already made a major tactical error by bringing it to their attention. The smartest thing to have done would have been to simply to start securing your weapon in your car, pursuant to Texas State Law, which was written to protect your right as a CHL holder to do exactly that. After all, your company's policy is in violation of the law, not you, and you are not in any way required to act contrary to state law simply to fulfill their own paranoid fantasies. Had you remained silent on the subject, you would have never had to deal with it until they found out about your weapon and confronted you about it. As long as you remained silent, they would not find out. And if they had found out by some other means and confronted you, simply providing them with a copy of SB321 would be all the defense you need. They cannot require you to reveal your CHL status to them. They cannot access the DPS database to find out independently if you have one. That database is accessible only to law-enforcement, and only then for law-enforcement purposes. Therefore, they cannot legitimately know about your CHL unless you tell them.

So, you have made yourself into the nail that sticks up. The corporate lawyers will now do whatever they can to pound it back down.

Silence is golden.

As usual, TAM has hit the nail on the head (pun intended).

[gwashorn]

TAM, well written. I like it and agree.

No most of us can not afford to lose our jobs and the cost to regain would be problematic. Like Charles says the ride will get you even if you win. But then that, IMHO, is how they know they can get away with it. Most of these companies know what is going on and those that are clueless still operate on the same principal, push until we push back. But they figure most of us will not fight back. That is ashame and I am sure one of us will finally actually be the one posting about what really happens. I hope if this does happen it becomes the biggest news story that presents a negative to the company and sends a message to all the others.

[BFGJoe]

Sorry, but I disagree with the "silent option" here. I think that makes sense in the case of a improperly posted 30.06 sign where you are a patron/visitor but not in the case of this employee policy issue. Improper signage works to your benefit whereas bad policies put forth by employers puts you at risk. WE ARE THE PEOPLE and if we don't stand up for what is right who is going to do it for us? This whole bill was about reaffirming our rights and these little battles being fought everywhere are mere extensions of that initial effort. If you see an opportunity to make it right then you should seize the chance to do so. Would you rather that someone lose their job when the company trips over the issue and sorts out the fact that they were wrong later? In the meantime fellow co-workers who stand to benefit from a properly revised policy avoid the issue and don't store firearms in their vehicles out of fear? I am all for tactfully bring it to the company's attention so that they can address it now. Sure, if a company wants to be vindictive about the whole thing they can structure their business/parking lot scheme to do so, but they are going to do that now or later, regardless. I am sure there will be future legislation to address these "loopholes" as they are exploited.

I have fought this battle several times already via proxy of former co-workers and friends and in all cases the company's misguided policy was rooted in misunderstanding of the law (i.e. HR/policy people not consulting with their lawyers), ignorance, and/or incompetence. Once the right people got involved the policy has been revised to match the written word of the law and, in one case where there was a gray area, in the spirit of the law! Most companies are going to act on what makes sense financially, not some misguided higher moral ground. Getting sued for wrongful termination and/or getting their name dragged through the mud in a public incident is a fairly expensive bill to foot for a matter of principle.

So to the OP. In my opinion you have done the right thing to bring it to their attention, and from what I can gather, it appears you have done so in a tactful manner. At this point I would give them time to sort it out. If lawyers are truly involved in the review then you should rest assured they will probably get it right. If they come to the wrong conclusion hopefully you will have a chance to steer them in the right direction again and take another look. Until then, just as with the "silent option", you and the rest of your co-workers will have to make a tough decision on how much risk to your job you wish to incur or avoid, legal or not. I would bone-up a little bit on your knowledge about what the exceptions are regarding refineries and CHL's and figure out how they may apply to your location.

On a side note, what I see as being kind of interesting is that most of the refineries I have been around in Texas tend to have a high percentage of hunters and sportsman that would greatly benefit from being able to stage their departure for their weekend hunting trip from work versus heading home and loading up. It wouldn't surprise me if there is yet another surge in CHL applications as a result of this new law. I am sure that there will be more to come on all of this.

Good luck!
- Joe

[puma guy]

The facility I worked for has had the main employee (mostly operators and overflow staff) parking lot secured with a gate amd card reader for entry for several years. The "office/visitor" parking was unrestricted access for visitors and some employees (non-operators). I drove by recently and noticed the office lot now has gates. Having been in management and knowing how some of the HR and legal types think, they are probably parsing the part about "restricted" to support no CHL in the parking lot. Both of the parking lots have no production areas in them. I used to pick up my wife for lunch post 30.06 and they still had a gun buster sign on the main office door. I used to walk in and have the receptionist call her. It was still there in 2010 when she retired.

[MoJo]

This whole parking lot thing makes me glad I'm retired and no longer have to deal with these kind of issues. It reminds me of the saying, "Gun control is not about guns, it's about control."

[Oldgringo]

This whole parking lot thing makes me glad I'm retired and no longer have to deal with these kind of issues.

Roger that!