Last week the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re-instated an employee terminated because while arguing with his supervisor he allegedly made threatening remarks. It was also known the employee carried concealed weapons on his person or in his vehicle. This would be in breach of the company’s workplace violence policy that prohibits employees from possessing unauthorized weapons in the workplace. Several days later representatives of the company along with a union representative and a deputy sheriff confronted the employee and requested he allow them to search his person and his vehicle for weapons. The search uncovered the firearm that was in his truck in the company parking lot.  The employee was terminated shortly thereafter. Done and done, correct?

Not in a union environment and not in Illinois.

The plaintiff-employee grieved the termination, and in arbitration the arbitrator was asked to decide if the termination was for just cause. The arbitrator ruled the employee, though guilty of some things, should not have been fired because he did not find the employee’s remarks to his supervisor threatening.  He found they were “merely a clear affront to [his supervisor’s] authority.” Second, and more particularly, the arbitrator found that although the employee had violated the employer’s no weapons policy, the employee had a valid license to carry the weapon under state law, and the employer had not properly posted a sign notifying employees that they could not bring weapons onto the property.

The employer appealed, and the district court ruled in favor of the employer finding that the arbitrator had improperly applied the state law.

The employee appealed the lower court decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  They reviewed the case – applying the rule that courts should only review arbitrators’ decisions in “very limited” circumstances and only when the arbitrator exceeds “their scope of his submission,” which in labor speak means the arbitrator has gone too far outside the confines of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). That area could be an outside law that both unions and employers generally agree may supersede the CBA – in this case, the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act.

The Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act allows private employers to prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms on the property under his or her control provided the owner posts a sign stating firearms are prohibited on the property. Private residences do not have to post. Further, the law states that employees have the right to carry and store their firearm in a parking area and around it, in a locked container, for the limited purpose of storing or retrieving a firearm within the vehicle’s trunk.

After reviewing the facts of the case, the state law, as well as the CBA that stated “any provision in this agreement found by either party to be in conflict with State or Federal Statutes shall be suspended when such conflict occurs and shall  immediately be reopened for amendment to remove such conflict,” the Appeals Court found the arbitrator in line with his authority to rule on the issue.

Does this mean Illinois workers that have concealed weapon permits may carry weapons onto a private employer’s property regardless of policy? No. As far as the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was concerned this case rested primarily upon the law of arbitration. In Illinois, private union employers should review and modify CBA’s that do not align their rights to this law. This will most likely have to be bargained with. Non-union employers should make sure their policy is clearly stated and signs are properly posted on their property to ensure their rights are protected.

Michigan is still a property rights state which means private employers may prohibit weapons in general, and guns in particular, on employer property should they so choose. As Michigan approaches hunting season, it is recommended that employers review and communicate policy to avoid non-compliance.

Additional ASE Resources
ASE Research Services – ASE members have access to the HR Research Hotline.  Please call the hotline if you have any questions regarding gun or weapon policy development.  For assistance in developing a compliant policy, contact Mike Burns.

CCH HRAnswersNow – For sample policies, ASE members can access the CCH HRAnswersNow library via the ASE Member Dashboard.

Sources:  AMEREN ILLINOIS COMPANY v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS No. 18-1591. (10/12/2018); LAW 360 7th Circ. Backs Rehiring of Worker Fired for Stored Gun 10/15/2018; CCH HRAnswersNow