Workplace Law - Searching Vehicles on Company Property (1 Viewer)

[babydemon90]

Question for LawyerGuys (or anyone with some knowledge/experience in this area). I live in PA.

So - my work recently put out a memo that there is a new 'alcohol-free' workplace, with the following stipulations.

“[SIZE=11.5pt]The possession or concealment of alcohol while on [workplace] premises is strictly forbidden and will result in an employee’s immediate discharge.” [/SIZE]

and

“[SIZE=11.5pt][workplace] [/SIZE]reserves the right to conduct searches at any time of all property on [SIZE=11.5pt][workplace] [/SIZE] premises, including but not limited to contents of lockers, desks, file cabinets, purses, brief cases, and vehicles parked on [SIZE=11.5pt][workplace] [/SIZE]owned or leased property.”

An employee who ... or refuses to consent to a search of his or her person, possessions, work area, or vehicle, shall be discharged

My main concern is the 'vehicle' part of this policy, obviously they can search lockers and desks all they like.

I'm going to send the following email to HR - realizing that the policy might be 'legal' in the strictest sense of the word, but certainly seems like a violation of expectation of privacy, and I can imagine a lawsuit if we actually tried to fire someone based on items found in such a search..

Am I missing anything? Overreacting? Is there anything I should be bringing up regarding potential legal issues with such a policy?

================================================================

Can you provide legal justification and court cases upholding that right to us? And to follow up, are we 100% certain that ECRI is not going to be subject to a lawsuit if that expectation of privacy is violated? While expectation of privacy is certainly limited at the workplace, and areas like desks, computers, etc.. do not fall under that category, a locked vehicle certainly still falls within such an arena. This is an area of huge concern, and one I 100% disagree with….

Not to mention, the enforcement leaves further questions, which as a manager, I need to be able to answer.

1. Who will be doing the searching?
2. What probable cause is required by [workplace] to search an employee’s vehicle?
3. How intrusive is said search – is it limited to visible areas where an expectation of privacy is lessened, or will trunks and glove boxes be expected to be opened on pain of termination?
4. How do we intend to prove any substance found is alcoholic in nature? I’d imagine most people who want to go out and drink in their cars will now be storing alcohol in a water bottle, or otherwise neutral container, are we confiscating any liquids found for testing (and who is doing said test)?

 

[jon_mx]

Your employer is not the government. Your privacy is only protected to the extend that your state passed laws to protect it. What do you plan to gain by bringing this up? I can only see a negative impact.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Im pretty sure u can refuse the search, then they can fire u for cause

 

[babydemon90]

Your employer is not the government. Your privacy is only protected to the extend that your state passed laws to protect it. What do you plan to gain by bringing this up? I can only see a negative impact.

a) i realize that. hence the 'realization that the policy is legal' portion. Just because you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD.

b) regardless of the legality of it, I feel that it is a violation of privacy to expect to be able to search an employees vehicle. As a manager at said location, I don't have near enough information to know how to enforce this, and several of my reports have actively complained about the policy. Given that it is a 'new' policy,my hope is that if enough employees/management voices concerns to HR, they will rethink it - this isn't a policy that's been in existence for years.

 

[NutterButter]

Christ, where the hell do you work?

 

[bigbottom]

You keep saying expectation of privacy. The whole point of promulgating the policy and providing notice to employees is to eliminate any expectation of privacy.

That said, there may nevertheless be statutory privacy protections under PA law.

 

[the moops]

Christ, where the hell do you work?

your company sounds like a bunch of **** holes

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

You keep saying expectation of privacy. The whole point of promulgating the policy and providing notice to employees is to eliminate any expectation of privacy.

That said, there may nevertheless be statutory privacy protections under PA law.

wat

 

[johnnycakes]

Disputing company policy with HR probably isn't the shark move. Unless you are in the legal department and they asked for your opinion.

 

[msommer]

Park outside their premises down?

 

[the moops]

Doesn't mention searching the person. Keep your booze and weed and stuff in your pockets

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Disputing company policy with HR probably isn't the shark move. Unless you are in the legal department and they asked for your opinion.

I think he is disputing the policy because he finds it draconian but because it might result in a legal action against the company.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Christ, where the hell do you work?

your company sounds like a bunch of **** holes

read your employee handbook, most companies have this kind of thing in there

 

[the moops]

Christ, where the hell do you work?

your company sounds like a bunch of **** holes

read your employee handbook, most companies have this kind of thing in there

not any place i have ever worked

 

[PatsWillWin]

Fire someone for having an unopened bottle of wine in their parked car? Jeez.

 

[Fennis]

Step 1. Load up your car with drugs and dead hookers and park it.

Step 2. ???

Step 3. Profit

 

[Bucky86]

What type of place is this? Sounds like they have a drunk working there and need to build a case to fire that person, but maybe can't be seen targeting any single person?

 

[Johnny Rock]

While it seems over the top, my biggest problem with it is the word "shall" where "may" should be. Why would they want to restrict themselves so much? Doesn't leave any wiggle room, which is fine until it forces them to fire someone they don't want to.

Kind of like school Zero Tolerance policies that expel good students for something dumb. Asinine.

 

[babydemon90]

Disputing company policy with HR probably isn't the shark move. Unless you are in the legal department and they asked for your opinion.

Technically, while not in the legal department (which is why I was hoping from some good conversation here), the email out did ask for questions or concerns to be voiced..and I am in management at my company, so I feel like I have a vested interest in promoting good workplace habits.

I also did run this by the CIO of my company (my boss), and he has stated he agrees 100% and is encouraging me to send an email discussing my concerns as well, so I'm not going out on a limb here without the support of my boss.

 

[babydemon90]

You keep saying expectation of privacy. The whole point of promulgating the policy and providing notice to employees is to eliminate any expectation of privacy.

That said, there may nevertheless be statutory privacy protections under PA law.

That's kind of what I'm asking. Seems like there would be an expectation of privacy in say a locked trunk or glovebox, (or a purse, or on a person) even if the policy says otherwise.

 

[The Big Guy]

Disputing company policy with HR probably isn't the shark move. Unless you are in the legal department and they asked for your opinion.

Technically, while not in the legal department (which is why I was hoping from some good conversation here), the email out did ask for questions or concerns to be voiced..and I am in management at my company, so I feel like I have a vested interest in promoting good workplace habits.

I also did run this by the CIO of my company (my boss), and he has stated he agrees 100% and is encouraging me to send an email discussing my concerns as well, so I'm not going out on a limb here without the support of my boss.

Let's call that limited support or he would send the message himself.

 

[The Z Machine]

I think stressing to HR that some of your direct reports have had questions about this policy (such as the ones you've outlined) and that while you don't suspect that they are in violation off this policy, it is having a negative impact on their morale. Maybe go so far as to say that they are losing faith in the management of the company if they insist on treating their employees like criminals / children.

 

[(HULK)]

I've never been drunk at work and I'd be looking for a new job if this happened at my workplace. Ridiculous.

 

[johnnycakes]

Disputing company policy with HR probably isn't the shark move. Unless you are in the legal department and they asked for your opinion.

Technically, while not in the legal department (which is why I was hoping from some good conversation here), the email out did ask for questions or concerns to be voiced..and I am in management at my company, so I feel like I have a vested interest in promoting good workplace habits.

I also did run this by the CIO of my company (my boss), and he has stated he agrees 100% and is encouraging me to send an email discussing my concerns as well, so I'm not going out on a limb here without the support of my boss.

OK, then. I thought you were some pee-on working in the mail room who didn't want his 1992 Ford Probe probed or something like that.

 

[The_Man]

Disputing company policy with HR probably isn't the shark move. Unless you are in the legal department and they asked for your opinion.

Technically, while not in the legal department (which is why I was hoping from some good conversation here), the email out did ask for questions or concerns to be voiced..and I am in management at my company, so I feel like I have a vested interest in promoting good workplace habits.

I also did run this by the CIO of my company (my boss), and he has stated he agrees 100% and is encouraging me to send an email discussing my concerns as well, so I'm not going out on a limb here without the support of my boss.

OK, then. I thought you were some pee-on working in the mail room who didn't want his 1992 Ford Probe probed or something like that.

OK, I enjoy the phrase "pee-on" which I had never heard before. But you do know the actual word is peon, right?

 

[comfortably numb]

Christ, where the hell do you work?

Chick Fil A?

 

[johnnycakes]

Disputing company policy with HR probably isn't the shark move. Unless you are in the legal department and they asked for your opinion.

Technically, while not in the legal department (which is why I was hoping from some good conversation here), the email out did ask for questions or concerns to be voiced..and I am in management at my company, so I feel like I have a vested interest in promoting good workplace habits.

I also did run this by the CIO of my company (my boss), and he has stated he agrees 100% and is encouraging me to send an email discussing my concerns as well, so I'm not going out on a limb here without the support of my boss.

OK, then. I thought you were some pee-on working in the mail room who didn't want his 1992 Ford Probe probed or something like that.

OK, I enjoy the phrase "pee-on" which I had never heard before. But you do know the actual word is peon, right?

Have to throw the FFA grammar checkers a bone once in a while. Enjoy.

 

[ZenMaster]

Fire someone for having an unopened bottle of wine in their parked car? Jeez.

This is from my company's Drug-Free Workplace Policy. The below is considered to be a major infraction and violators are subject to termination. We can't have alcohol on the property. It's unlikely that anyone would ever get caught having an unopened bottle of wine in his/her car, and I'd like to think it's unlikely that someone would get fired for it unless the company was already looking for a reason to do it.

• Use, possession, sale or distribution of alcohol, or being under the influence of alcohol,

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Disputing company policy with HR probably isn't the shark move. Unless you are in the legal department and they asked for your opinion.

I think he is disputing the policy because he finds it draconian but because it might result in a legal action against the company.

The first is a legitimate concern. The second? Not so much. The company presumably has a legal department to worry about such things. I don't really see much to be concerned about. You don't have a "right to privacy" vis a vis a private employer. If they want to condition employment on being able to check your car while its on company property that might be a stupid policy, but I don't see any reason it would be illegal.

 

[the moops]

Why is your company so damn concerned about alcohol? You work at a rehab center or something?

 

[NutterButter]

Christ, where the hell do you work?

your company sounds like a bunch of **** holes

read your employee handbook, most companies have this kind of thing in there

not any place i have ever worked

Same here. Most places I've work have random alcohol in the kitchen fridge. A few places I've worked, the boss has bought us beer when we were working late coding.

 

[Parrothead]

sometimes I go to the liquor store and/or beer distributor at lunch... so if I worked with you, I can be fired for having a case of beer or bottle of wine in my car??