Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, NAA CORNER—Guns at Work, (Oct 28, 2025)
Organizations Mentioned:Labor and Employment | National Academy of Arbitrators | Seyfarth Shaw, LLP
By Randi H. Abramsky, NAA Member
During the keynote session, counsel for each side made oral arguments and then the arbitrators were asked to rule, through a “green light, red light” format.
At the National Academy of Arbitrators’ 48th Annual Meeting, Barry Winograd, former President of the NAA, moderated a keynote session on gun violence in the workplace and provided a moving explanation for his interest in the topic. Gun violence impacted his family directly when a close friend of his daughter became a victim of gun violence at a workplace. The session explored what role arbitration plays in regulating guns at work.
Labor and management advocates and a panel of arbitrators considered The Case of the Hidden Handgun, which involved the discharge of an employee after a loaded gun was found in his locker, contrary to a work rule prohibiting weapons on company property. The panel of NAA arbitrators included Chris Albertyn, Alan Symonette, Samantha Tower, and Pilar Vaile. The advocate panelists were attorney Dennis Coyne, of the union-side law firm of McDonald Lamond and Canzoneri; attorney Desiree Murphy, Senior Legal Counsel for Labor and Employment for CVS Health; attorney Alfred Gordon O’Connell of the union-side law firm of Pyle, Rome and Ehrenberg, and Arthur Telegen of the management-side law firm of Seyfarth Shaw.
In the fast-moving session, Moderator Winograd gave a brief overview of the facts of the hypothetical and then raised issues that might be typical in a discipline case involving guns at work. Counsel for each side made oral arguments and then the arbitrators were asked to rule, through a “green light, red light” format.
The Fact Scenario
The Company, Master Chef, offers services to airlines and leases a warehouse on airport property. Its rules, adopted in 2019, prohibited “possession at work of any weapon that can cause serious physical harm to others.” Signs indicating no guns at work were prominently displayed, and the Grievant was aware of the “no guns” rule. Due to flight delays and short staffing, the Grievant was told by his supervisor that he would have to work two hours of overtime. The Grievant objected due to long-standing family plans, but the supervisor remained firm. The Grievant then stepped forward, and said, in anger, “You’re a jerk. I’ll get even for this.” He pointed his index finger at his supervisor as he spoke. A co-worker overheard this exchange and stepped between them, moving the Grievant away. The Supervisor reported what occurred to the Director of Human Resources.
The Company, including the Supervisor and the Human Resources Director, were aware of the common belief that the Grievant was a gun collector. The Grievant’s locker was searched and a loaded handgun and an ammunition clip were found in his backpack. When questioned (with his Union Steward present), the Grievant acknowledged he knew the rule. He explained that he had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and forgot to leave his backpack in his car following target practice the day before when he came to work. Under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, the Company has the right to make reasonable work rules and retained the right to search employee lockers for “unlawful or prohibited items.”
The Issues
Hearsay—the Union objected to testimony about the fact that management had “heard of talk that the Grievant was a gun collector.”
The Union asserted that this was multiple level hearsay, unreliable and prejudicial. The Employer argued that it was not hearsay since it was not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted, but one of the reasons why management was concerned about the supervisor’s safety.
Ruling
The arbitrators split on their ruling: three would allow it on the basis that it was relevant to the Employer’s decision to search the Grievant’s locker. The dissenter found it inadmissible because it was double hearsay and unreliable.
The Union objected to the co-worker’s testimony that he feared the Grievant would strike the supervisor.
The Union asserted that the co-worker’s perception was irrelevant since the discharge was based on a violation of a work rule, not about the Grievant’s interaction with his supervisor. Only testimony about what he saw and heard should be admitted. The Employer argued that the testimony was relevant context, that based on what he saw and heard, he felt he had to intervene.
Ruling
The arbitrators would allow the testimony, based on context, reasonableness of the search, and the prospective remedy—was the Grievant a safety risk?
Testimony about the origin of the work rule, specifically a shooting death in the parking lot at another Company facility. The Union objected based on relevance.
The Union contended that the basis of the rule was irrelevant. The Union was not contesting the rule and its admission could cause prejudice by linking that shooting to the Grievant’s actions. The Employer asserted that when and why the rule was created demonstrates the reasonableness of the rule, and was relevant.
Ruling
The arbitrators split - two would admit the testimony since it established the basis for the rule; the other two would not allow it since the reasonableness of the rule was not challenged.
The Grievant’s explanation for having his gun at work. The Employer objected.
The Employer asserted that the Grievant’s explanation for why he violated the policy was irrelevant. The Union argued that his explanation went to whether there was just cause, since he did not willfully and knowingly violate the rule.
Ruling
The arbitrators voted to allow the Grievant’s explanation. They agreed that it was important to allow the Grievant to tell his side of the story, and that it was relevant to establish the level of seriousness of the violation.
The Union sought to introduce evidence of the Employer’s inaction or disinclination to impose serious discipline for similar instances when employees brought weapons on the property prior to the unilateral adoption of the “No Guns Rule.” The Employer objected.
The Employer objected to any instances of its responses to employees bringing guns into work prior to the rule taking effect. It changed the rule; any pre-rule action was totally irrelevant. The rule was changed and that is what counts. The Union argued that it showed that the Company has not been consistent in its approach to this issue and the Company’s sudden fear of harm was greatly overblown.
Ruling
Three arbitrators refused to admit this evidence since it pre-dated the rule. One arbitrator allowed it for the purposes of the Company’s proposed justification for discipline.
The Ultimate Question—Should the grievance be sustained and the employee returned to work?
The Employer asserted that it had the right to establish a no-gun rule at work, and a right to inspect the Grievant’s locker given his earlier threat to “get even” with his supervisor while pointing his index finger at her. The no-gun rule was reasonable and enforced. He brought a loaded gun and ammunition to work, even though he was aware of the rule. It was a clear violation, and his excuse that he “forgot” he had the gun should not be accepted. If accepted, the Employer argued, the impact would amount to revoking the rule. Any employee could claim he “forgot.” It was a clear rule and a clear violation. The Employer had an obligation to protect employees, and cannot accept such behavior.
The Union asserted that the Grievant brought the gun into work by mistake. It was an accidental violation.
Ruling
Three arbitrators would have denied the grievance. They found the search of the locker reasonable in the circumstances; it was a clear and reasonable rule; the Grievant was aware of the rule. His violation constituted just cause for discharge. One arbitrator would have rescinded the discharge and imposed a 30-day suspension. The view was that while the rule was reasonable, there was no real risk caused by the violation, and the search was based, in part, on gossip.
Conclusion
It was a lively and interesting session. The program was videotaped through a grant by the REF and the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers for educational purposes, and appears on the NAA website.
About the author. Randi H. Abramsky is a full-time labour arbitrator and mediator practicing in Ontario and the United States. She is an active member of the Ontario Labour Management Arbitrators’ Association and the National Academy of Arbitrators.
Companies: National Academy of Arbitrators
MainStory: Arbitration Safety UnionsMembers IndustryNewsTrends