Gun in Vehicle question

[Tim-g19]

Does a Company have a right to enter your Locked vehicle on its parking lot?
and then what about locked things inside your vehicle?

I just assumed my car was mine and they couldn't.

Can a private company do that? or would they call Law Enforcement?
and what if a Private company did enter my vehicle w/o asking or myself present?

 

[melensdad]

Depends. Employers have rights, including rights in their parking areas.

 

[rkba_net]

They do not have the right to search a vehicle... on the other hand Indiana is a Right to Work State... so an employer can fire you for ANY reason... other than those protected by FEDERAL LAW...

 

[melensdad]

They do not have the right to search a vehicle

Uh, can you cite the code that prevents an employer from reserving that right in its work rules? Unless the laws have changed, there was nothing to prevent me from requiring that employees cars could not be searched. In fact we had it in our work rules stating we could search their cars if they were parked on the company property.

 

[Scutter01]

Uh, can you cite the code that prevents an employer from reserving that right in its work rules? Unless the laws have changed, there was nothing to prevent me from requiring that employees cars could not be searched. In fact we had it in our work rules stating we could search their cars if they were parked on the company property.

I have no idea, so I'm not stating an opinion, merely asking for information: Just because it's in the work rules doesn't necessarily give them the right. I mean, one rule could be "All employees must submit to sexual assault once per week" but that doesn't make it legal, right? OTOH, if you agreed to it as a condition of employment, does that waive your right to not be assaulted?

 

[Tim-g19]

I was only asking cause someone saw my spare magazines in my truck, I know them but not real well, "No gun inside BTW". But was wondering if someones stupidity was enough for them to break into my truck. If they asked me before I would say yes, the job pays for my Guns and toys, but I would want to unlock it myself and watch them in my truck is all.

 

[rhino]

The only way an employer could legally search your vehicle is if you signed a contract or employment agreement that gave them permission to do so, or you gave them permission when they asked. They could obviously fire or otherwise penalize you if they wanted to search your vehicle and you refused.

 

[Feign]

Employer or not, no one will ever search my car for any reason. If I refuse and they decide to let me go since Indiana is At Will, so be it. If it's an officer, I'll still refrain.

 

[melensdad]

The only way an employer could legally search your vehicle is if you signed a contract or employment agreement that gave them permission to do so, or you gave them permission when they asked. They could obviously fire or otherwise penalize you if they wanted to search your vehicle and you refused.

In some states, and Indiana used to be one of them and I presume it is still one of them, the property owner, which in the proposed scenario is the employer, has the right to forbid guns, to perform security checks in the parking lots, to search purses and bags, etc. The employer can perform random searches, random drug tests, search your lunchbox, even perform literacy tests.

Employer or not, no one will ever search my car for any reason. If I refuse and they decide to let me go since Indiana is At Will, so be it. If it's an officer, I'll still refrain.

Yes, you can refuse. That would, under many workplace rules, be considered an automatic quit rather than a termination. Obviously it would depend on how well written the workplace rules were, but being fired for disobeying a legal rule is better than quitting and in the case of the company I sold, as well as most I know with formal rules, you would have quit and therefore be unable to collect unemployment benefits.

 

[hunter480]

In some states, and Indiana used to be one of them and I presume it is still one of them, the property owner, which in the proposed scenario is the employer, has the right to forbid guns, to perform security checks in the parking lots, to search purses and bags, etc. The employer can perform random searches, random drug tests, search your lunchbox, even perform literacy tests.


Yes, you can refuse. That would, under many workplace rules, be considered an automatic quit rather than a termination. Obviously it would depend on how well written the workplace rules were, but being fired for disobeying a legal rule is better than quitting and in the case of the company I sold, as well as most I know with formal rules, you would have quit and therefore be unable to collect unemployment benefits.

What he said-at Lilly, we have a no gun in vehicle policy. My understanding is, I could refuse for my locked vehicle to be searched, but that would be the same as insubordination, which is by the way, a firing offense.

 

[Feign]

Yes, you can refuse. That would, under many workplace rules, be considered an automatic quit rather than a termination. Obviously it would depend on how well written the workplace rules were, but being fired for disobeying a legal rule is better than quitting and in the case of the company I sold, as well as most I know with formal rules, you would have quit and therefore be unable to collect unemployment benefits.

Fair enough.

My employer's policy is "Refusal to consent is cause for termination of employment." That sounds like their onus, not mine.

 

[Lars]

I'm intending to bolt a small gun safe to the underside of the rear window deck. My employer doesn't have any claim on the parking lot of this building. And our employee manual doesn't allow for them to search my vehicle. That said, I like the idea of having a safe place to keep my firearm. In case I have to go somewhere I absolutely can't carry. (court house, federal building with metal detectors, etc.)

I know the locked glove box would only slow me down about 10 seconds if i was determined to get into it. a steel box with a lock bolted to the steel structure of my car is likely to slow someone down quite a bit more.

 

[melensdad]

My employer's policy is "Refusal to consent is cause for termination of employment." That sounds like their onus, not mine.

I would agree, but that is based on seeing only this one line from your policy manual. In the manual for my company we had a line that stated "failure to comply with any reasonable request from a supervisor is considered a voluntary quit . . ." I've seen many companies adopt similar line in their policy manuals, but your manual appears to mandate termination.

 

[Feign]

I would agree, but that is based on seeing only this one line from your policy manual. In the manual for my company we had a line that stated "failure to comply with any reasonable request from a supervisor is considered a voluntary quit . . ." I've seen many companies adopt similar line in their policy manuals, but your manual appears to mandate termination.

Sorry, yeah that was right under the vehicle searching statement and doesn't say anything to that effect.

Regardless, I'll never comply.

 

[Scutter01]

In the manual for my company we had a line that stated "failure to comply with any reasonable request from a supervisor is considered a voluntary quit . . ."

I'm not sure consent to search my personal private property (my vehicle) constitutes a reasonable request. I really wish the parking lot law had been passed. This would have been a much easier issue.

 

[melensdad]

I'm not sure consent to search my personal private property (my vehicle) constitutes a reasonable request. I really wish the parking lot law had been passed. This would have been a much easier issue.

You are entitled to your opinion of what you believe is 'reasonable' but it may not be upheld by the courts, which have historically backed the employer's right to control what is, and is not, allowed on his property. JMO, but a drug test seems far more invasive than a property search.

 

[CarmelHP]

Yes, you can refuse. That would, under many workplace rules, be considered an automatic quit rather than a termination. Obviously it would depend on how well written the workplace rules were, but being fired for disobeying a legal rule is better than quitting and in the case of the company I sold, as well as most I know with formal rules, you would have quit and therefore be unable to collect unemployment benefits.

If an employer "automatically quits" you, it's considered a discharge and you can collect unemployment benefits unless your employer can show just cause. If they just insist that it's a quit, they would fail their burden of proof.

 

[melensdad]

If an employer "automatically quits" you, it's considered a discharge and you can collect unemployment benefits unless your employer can show just cause. If they just insist that it's a quit, they would fail their burden of proof.

My company successfully defended our position many times. An an employer I did not 'automatically quit' anyone, the employee quit by refusing a reasonable request as per the work rules. It was the employee who took the action and had the choice to quit under the wording of our rules. It was tested several times in NLRB hearings and prevailed. I'm not trying to argue but you are simply wrong.

 

[Shay]

I'm not trying to argue but you are simply wrong.

Maybe his opinion on this matter is just as valid as yours?

 

[melensdad]

Maybe his opinion on this matter is just as valid as yours?

My opinion was not stated. However I did state what the law upholds.