Firearm at work

**AndyD** · 30-Aug-12, 09:27 PM

I guess it depends on the kind of work the employees are doing and where they're doing it....and maybe how much of a Rambo the employee is as well.

My take on it is that I know the gun owner has the right to bear arms but if they're working in other peoples premises those people also have the right to keep their property fire-arm-free as well. Big companies aside, plenty of people, especially those with kids for example might not like the thought of firearms in their house. Many big companies have recently tightened up on their firearms policies after some recent newsworthy events.
http://www.fin24.com/Companies/Inves...-Town-20120727

My guys are also installers so when they're working in ceilings and other tight spaces doing physical installation work, carrying a firearm on their person becomes a major pain in he ass and there's always the tendancy to take them out and leave them lying around or leave them in the vehicle which is an obvious security issue.

The reason I introduced a firearm policy was because of an incident that happened during a company Christmas braai a few years ago. I'm not going into great detail but a firearm was discharged several times. It was removed from the owner by force and the police were involved. It got very messy with multiple charges being laid and resulted in the employee being dismissed amongst other things. It was something I had no desre to be repeated and we included a clause in the employment contracts and posted a firearms policy in the staff room ever since.

**ians** · 31-Aug-12, 07:30 AM

Andy, was there alcohol involved?

**AndyD** · 31-Aug-12, 11:41 AM

Yes there was. It was a lesson learned from my side, lets just say we no longer give staff the benifit of the doubt and assume they're capable of regulating their alcohol intake to a sensible amount.

**Just Gone** · 31-Aug-12, 01:19 PM

assume they're capable of regulating their alcohol intake to a sensible amount.

That is something that I would never assume ......

**tec0** · 31-Aug-12, 03:54 PM

Just remember if someone order someone to disarm, regardless if it is at work, shop whatever that person that ordered the disarm can be hold accountable for the safety of the other person while they are at the premises in question. Also if they "the person ordering the disarm" force you to sign something "like a disarm policy or weapons free policy"

**ians** · 01-Sep-12, 08:00 AM

Sometimes, it is better not to make an issue of something, unless it becomes an issue.

**ians** · 01-Sep-12, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by AndyD

Yes there was. It was a lesson learned from my side, lets just say we no longer give staff the benifit of the doubt and assume they're capable of regulating their alcohol intake to a sensible amount.

Just imagine if we could ban alcohol, you wouldn't turn drivers in murderers, you wouldn't turn family men into family abusers and you wouldnt have to duck for cover when a sober sensible person turns stupid under the influence.

**AndyD** · 01-Sep-12, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by tec0

Just remember if someone order someone to disarm, regardless if it is at work, shop whatever that person that ordered the disarm can be hold accountable for the safety of the other person while they are at the premises in question.

I'm not sure this is true. I'd be interested if there's any legislation regarding this. At the end of the day the guy with the firearm has a choice, in the case of my employees if he doesn't want to disarm he can seek another line of work or an alternative place of employment that doesn't require this of him.

**IMHO** · 01-Sep-12, 12:39 PM

Interesting indeed. Lets take the firearm out of the question and replace it with something like a veracity test. I have a problem with honesty and decide I want to do a veracity test. But you can not do it if the employee does not agree to do one. I can now make it a condition of employment for new employees, but can not force existing employees into this condition of employment if they do not agree to it. Am I right?

**Dave A** · 01-Sep-12, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by IMHO

I have a problem with honesty and decide I want to do a veracity test. But you can not do it if the employee does not agree to do one. I can now make it a condition of employment for new employees, but can not force existing employees into this condition of employment if they do not agree to it. Am I right?

Post 7 in this dismissal for theft discussion has a very informative attachment. Based on that there has to be consent.

So I guess you're right (although I can already hear the squealing about unequal negotiating positions at time of acceptance).