What really counts as notice

[cyphertext]

I don't think so either...not 30.06 notification.

30.06 has to be either oral (which can be any verbage which gets the point across that you can't have that gun in here)

Considering the HR manager told him "the building actually prohibits CHL carry as well as the company does not allow it", I think he has been notified.

If it is true that the HR manager is just making statements of what she wishes was policy, then the C level folks need to correct her.

[TexasCajun]

I don't think so either...not 30.06 notification.

30.06 has to be either oral (which can be any verbage which gets the point across that you can't have that gun in here)

Considering the HR manager told him "the building actually prohibits CHL carry as well as the company does not allow it", I think he has been notified.

If it is true that the HR manager is just making statements of what she wishes was policy, then the C level folks need to correct her.

Since both the OP and the HR manager work for the same company, and the OP outranks the manager; the OP has not been given effective notice. The HR manager's assumed authority doesn't appear to hold any effective weight. Current policy does not prohibit concealed carry, so an HR manager wishing it not to be the case doesn't make it so. And she definitely doesn't have any authority to speak on behalf of the building ownership/management.

Now, if I as a non-employee were to go to the OP's place of business and the HR manager tells me that concealed carry is not allowed, then I have been given effective notice. Where the HR manager doesn't hold authority over the OP, she would hold authority over me - albeit incorrect and improper.

[cyphertext]

I don't think so either...not 30.06 notification.

30.06 has to be either oral (which can be any verbage which gets the point across that you can't have that gun in here)

Considering the HR manager told him "the building actually prohibits CHL carry as well as the company does not allow it", I think he has been notified.

If it is true that the HR manager is just making statements of what she wishes was policy, then the C level folks need to correct her.

Since both the OP and the HR manager work for the same company, and the OP outranks the manager; the OP has not been given effective notice. The HR manager's assumed authority doesn't appear to hold any effective weight. Current policy does not prohibit concealed carry, so an HR manager wishing it not to be the case doesn't make it so. And she definitely doesn't have any authority to speak on behalf of the building ownership/management.

Now, if I as a non-employee were to go to the OP's place of business and the HR manager tells me that concealed carry is not allowed, then I have been given effective notice. Where the HR manager doesn't hold authority over the OP, she would hold authority over me - albeit incorrect and improper.

No, he does not "outrank" the HR manager. He is not her boss, nor does he tell her what policies to implement. He may be a director, but he only has control over his segment, not HR... HR puts company policy in place. Again, if she is acting out of place, it is up to the C level folks to correct her, or the director over HR. A director of sales, IT, marketing, customer management, etc, does not dictate to an HR manager.

[thetexan]

Of course, the rule requires that the owner or one with apparent authority acting for the owner gives the notice. I would think any of the officers and most managers would be reasonably construed by an outsider (non-employee) as acting with "apparent" authority for the owner if they gave oral notice.

The use of the term "apparent" in the statute seems to place the determination of the "apparent-ness" in the eye of the beholder which is the person who is being notified. So if I'm in the building the janitor, in my mind, does not act with authority for the owner. Or does he? How do I know? Which brings into question the whole purpose of the phrase "apparent authority". Since it is there for a reason, according to statutory interpretation, the original logic must hold true...that is, that the "apparent-ness" IS in the eye of the beholder.

So, as far as non-employees are concerned, at least on a theoretical level, they need to recognize the authority of the person giving the notice. Since most of us in that situation won't make a challenge to the "apparent" element, in practical application, almost anyone telling us to leave will cause us to leave.

As far as employees are concerned, they are certainly aware of the internal hierarchy of authority within their own organization and will recognize when someone with the owner's authority gives them 30.06 notice. But as stated earlier, THAT is not even needed. An employer has the right to dictate policy in his own business so he CAN tell an employee what to do about guns.

So we have two issues here. As far as employees are concerned...411.203 gives an employer the right to prohibit employees from carrying concealed handguns in their place of business and that prohibition need not be as per 30.06 either as to the "apparent authority" clause or to the oral or written clause. They just need to inform the employee in some manner as to the prohibition. I suspect that information comes in the form of a new hire briefing or employee handbook, etc.

As far as non-employees are concerned there must be 30.06 notification and the issue of "apparent authority" in the case of oral notification does then come into play and knowledge of internal hierarchy can not be relied upon since an outsider would not be privy to that information and therefore must rely upon the "apparent-ness" of the authority of the one giving notice...in whatever way that person calculates "apparent-ness" and to degree he is willing to put himself in legal jeopardy to test his guess.

tex

[ScottDLS]

...411.203 gives an employer the right to prohibit employees from carrying concealed handguns in their place of business and that prohibition need not be as per 30.06 either as to the "apparent authority" clause or to the oral or written clause. They just need to inform the employee in some manner as to the prohibition. I suspect that information comes in the form of a new hire briefing or employee handbook, etc.

This is fine, except if communicated in written form rather than oral, it must be in the 30.06 language in order to invoke trespass. So if your written policy says "no guns" but doesn't follow the 30.06 language, you won't be breaking the law, though you still may be fired.

[C-dub]

The concept of rank in a civilian company, to me, is mostly irrelevant. I've been in a large company with all those different levels and stuff and a director in another department had no real authority over me.

As Beiruty mentioned, HR managers or directors are very powerful folks. The line from them to folks much higher up is considerably shorter even though they may not have a title higher than mine. IMHO, the OP has been given oral notice. It may not be correct, but I wouldn't be willing to take that chance. I would be willing to get it clarified by someone higher up that seems to be open to the idea.

[cyphertext]

My company made it real clear... they posted!

[thetexan]

...411.203 gives an employer the right to prohibit employees from carrying concealed handguns in their place of business and that prohibition need not be as per 30.06 either as to the "apparent authority" clause or to the oral or written clause. They just need to inform the employee in some manner as to the prohibition. I suspect that information comes in the form of a new hire briefing or employee handbook, etc.

This is fine, except if communicated in written form rather than oral, it must be in the 30.06 language in order to invoke trespass. So if your written policy says "no guns" but doesn't follow the 30.06 language, you won't be breaking the law, though you still may be fired.

This is what I was talking about in the last post. There is no requirement for how a notification is given to an employee by his employer with regards to 411.203, language or otherwise. For that matter that even notice is given at all. The employer can establish a no-gun policy and, I suppose, never even tell you and, I suppose, fire you if he sees you carrying a gun...in Texas anyway, because Texas is an employ at will state. How an employer notifies his employees of any internal employment policy regarding guns is his business. Keep in mind...This has nothing to do with any statutory prohibition against guns in the premises of the business and the required 30.06 notification needed to effect that statutory prohibition.

As you say, if there is no 30.06 notification, oral or written, there is no violation of the state law, but only a company violation of company policy which may get you fired.

Let me add...If an employee is notified as to company policy...ORALLY... the oral notification would also serve as a 30.06 notification for statute purposes if it was given by someone with apparent authority acting for the owner. In that case an HR person, acting on behalf of the owner as the person with authority to brief employees, giving an employee a briefing on the company no-gun policy would serve as the notification to the employee in the employer/employee relationship and would also serve as 30.06 oral notification if the employee were to quit an hour later (terminating the employer/employee relationship, thus becoming a non-employee civilian). The new ex-employee could not reenter the building two hours later having just been orally briefed by someone with apparent authority to act for the owner...and that ex-employee knows it.

A lot of interesting nuance here.

tex

[ScottDLS]

The concept of rank in a civilian company, to me, is mostly irrelevant. I've been in a large company with all those different levels and stuff and a director in another department had no real authority over me.

As Beiruty mentioned, HR managers or directors are very powerful folks. The line from them to folks much higher up is considerably shorter even though they may not have a title higher than mine. IMHO, the OP has been given oral notice. It may not be correct, but I wouldn't be willing to take that chance. I would be willing to get it clarified by someone higher up that seems to be open to the idea.

If the HR manager states a policy that is not a policy and that typically is set in the company by higher level, then I don't see how they have apparent authority to tell you. Hypothetical - I am a Director. I have the explicit permission to be on the property of my company. There is no written policy against carrying. The HR manager, or receptionist for that matter, comes to me and states that it is company policy that I can't carry. It's not, and he has no authority to make it so. Why does this constitute notice that I no longer have permission to remain on the property armed?

[casp625]

Reminds me of the time in the Army when our relatively new 2LT from HR (S1) told our CSM that he needed to get approval from her on changes... Needless to say, that took off like a lead balloon once the colonel was informed of the "request"

[TexasCajun]

The concept of rank in a civilian company, to me, is mostly irrelevant. I've been in a large company with all those different levels and stuff and a director in another department had no real authority over me.

As Beiruty mentioned, HR managers or directors are very powerful folks. The line from them to folks much higher up is considerably shorter even though they may not have a title higher than mine. IMHO, the OP has been given oral notice. It may not be correct, but I wouldn't be willing to take that chance. I would be willing to get it clarified by someone higher up that seems to be open to the idea.

If the HR manager states a policy that is not a policy and that typically is set in the company by higher level, then I don't see how they have apparent authority to tell you. Hypothetical - I am a Director. I have the explicit permission to be on the property of my company. There is no written policy against carrying. The HR manager, or receptionist for that matter, comes to me and states that it is company policy that I can't carry. It's not, and he has no authority to make it so. Why does this constitute notice that I no longer have permission to remain on the property armed?

Exactly!

[MeMelYup]

So today I was in a conversation with an HR manager at work. We were discussing the fact that a new employee handbook was coming out in January. The manager mentioned that she was putting something in the manual regarding open carry in the office. We started talking about that a little and she then told me that the building actually prohibits CHL carry as well as the company does not allow it.
I know for a fact that my boss, a "C" level person, carries every day. I also know than numerous other high level people including the CEO and President carry as I have been shooting with them at lunch a few times. I am a director level position so technically I outrank the HR manager, she has however been there much longer.
The current employee manual does not contain any language about carrying weapons being prohibited and it is my understanding that was intentional. The building I am in is the Dallas Galleria office towers . There is no signage at all, not a 30.06, not even a gun busters sign prohibiting glocks.

So would this count as notice. I don't think so, but wanted to get some other opinions. My opinion is that she is not authorized to make that statement without the owners consent.

I would bring this information up to the higher management (CEO, etc.) and let them handle it.

[thetexan]

The concept of rank in a civilian company, to me, is mostly irrelevant. I've been in a large company with all those different levels and stuff and a director in another department had no real authority over me.

As Beiruty mentioned, HR managers or directors are very powerful folks. The line from them to folks much higher up is considerably shorter even though they may not have a title higher than mine. IMHO, the OP has been given oral notice. It may not be correct, but I wouldn't be willing to take that chance. I would be willing to get it clarified by someone higher up that seems to be open to the idea.

If the HR manager states a policy that is not a policy and that typically is set in the company by higher level, then I don't see how they have apparent authority to tell you. Hypothetical - I am a Director. I have the explicit permission to be on the property of my company. There is no written policy against carrying. The HR manager, or receptionist for that matter, comes to me and states that it is company policy that I can't carry. It's not, and he has no authority to make it so. Why does this constitute notice that I no longer have permission to remain on the property armed?

Exactly!

You have to separate 30.06 issues with company prohibition policies.

Two things here. One...the hr person either does or does not act with the authority of the owner to give 30.06 notice and only if the owner wishes to avail himself of the 30.06 prohibition. This is a matter of fact, not speculation. HR either does or does not WITH REGARD TO 30.06! There is either a 30.06 prohibition or there is not.

Second, 30.06 does not have importance in this discussion if we are talking about a company employee policy prohibiting employees with guns. In that case the janitor has the ability to let you know what the policy is, if there indeed is a policy. If the HR person is making up policies you had better make sure she hasn't been given that authority before you risk getting fired for not following it. If there is a company policy and if they will fire you for not following it it behoves you to follow it no matter how you get the info, janitor, mailboy, or secretary. If you want to challenge an employee's claim that there is a policy you need to be sure your career can stand it.

If you know there is no policy and if HR says there is then there is a problem. Act with political wisdom and get the issue resolved.

Tex

[TexasCajun]

The concept of rank in a civilian company, to me, is mostly irrelevant. I've been in a large company with all those different levels and stuff and a director in another department had no real authority over me.

As Beiruty mentioned, HR managers or directors are very powerful folks. The line from them to folks much higher up is considerably shorter even though they may not have a title higher than mine. IMHO, the OP has been given oral notice. It may not be correct, but I wouldn't be willing to take that chance. I would be willing to get it clarified by someone higher up that seems to be open to the idea.

If the HR manager states a policy that is not a policy and that typically is set in the company by higher level, then I don't see how they have apparent authority to tell you. Hypothetical - I am a Director. I have the explicit permission to be on the property of my company. There is no written policy against carrying. The HR manager, or receptionist for that matter, comes to me and states that it is company policy that I can't carry. It's not, and he has no authority to make it so. Why does this constitute notice that I no longer have permission to remain on the property armed?

Exactly!

You have to separate 30.06 issues with company prohibition policies.

Two things here. One...the hr person either does or does not act with the authority of the owner to give 30.06 notice and only if the owner wishes to avail himself of the 30.06 prohibition. This is a matter of fact, not speculation. HR either does or does not WITH REGARD TO 30.06! There is either a 30.06 prohibition or there is not.

Second, 30.06 does not have importance in this discussion if we are talking about a company employee policy prohibiting employees with guns. In that case the janitor has the ability to let you know what the policy is, if there indeed is a policy. If the HR person is making up policies you had better make sure she hasn't been given that authority before you risk getting fired for not following it. If there is a company policy and if they will fire you for not following it it behoves you to follow it no matter how you get the info, janitor, mailboy, or secretary. If you want to challenge an employee's claim that there is a policy you need to be sure your career can stand it.

If you know there is no policy and if HR says there is then there is a problem. Act with political wisdom and get the issue resolved.

Tex

Way back in the original post, it was stated that the current employee policy manual does not prohibit concealed carry. However the hr manager appears to have taken it upon herself to create/amend policy to prohibit concealed carry. Given that the hr manager's position conflicts with written policy and would seem to conflict with accepted practice (c-levels routinely conceal carry), and since the op outranks the hr manager (which would necessitate involving the op's supervisor in order to reprimand/discipline) the hr manager lacks authority to invoke both notice under 30.06 as well as company policy regarding concealed firearms. At least that's what I get from the information presented.

[ScottDLS]

That was my point.