Court Says Bus Drivers May Carry Gun On Job -- Ruling Could Have Wide Effect On Cities

In a potentially far-reaching decision for municipal workers, the state Court of Appeals has ruled that a Metro bus driver was wrongly fired in 1987 for carrying a concealed weapon on duty.

The appeals judges, in a 2-1 decision issued yesterday, said Metro's policy forbidding transit operators to carry weapons conflicts with a broader state law allowing the issuance of a license to carry a concealed pistol ``for the purposes of protection or while engaged in business, sport or while traveling.''

Desmond Brown, attorney for Metro, said the ruling does not grant drivers permission to carry weapons, at least not until the appeals process is exhausted.

It was not known immediately what effect, if any, the ruling would have on workers in the private sector.

Mark Murray, a spokesman for Mayor Norm Rice, said the city does not have any ordinance on the books similar to Metro's firearm regulation. ``But individual city departments may have policies or procedures that affect the right of an employee to carry a weapon on the job. If so, we may have to look at those to see if they fit with the ruling.''

John Chelminiak, spokesman for County Executive Tim Hill, said county policy is that an employee requires authority from a department manager and must have some training in the use of a firearm to carry a weapon on the job. He said county prosecutors will review the ruling.

John Cherry, who was a 14-year Metro employee, challenged his firing in September 1987 after he was questioned the month before for having a .38-caliber snub-nosed revolver, a 6-inch pointed brass rod and a cattle prod used to administer electric shocks. He maintained he was concerned about his safety because of violent passengers. He had a permit to carry the pistol.

Metro said in firing Cherry that the gun was only one of several reasons for his dismissal. Cherry appealed the firing, and an arbitrator sided with Metro, but said Cherry's admitted violation of the no-weapons policy alone justified termination.

Judge Marshall Forrest, writing for the majority, said the arbitrator erred in ruling for Cherry's discharge over the no-gun policy violation.

Forrest, with the concurrence of Judge Solie Ringold, serving pro tem, wrote that ``there simply is no statutory authority granting municipalities the authority to regulate the possession of firearms by its employees.''

Cities, towns, counties and other municipal corporations may not have ordinances that exceed the state law, they said, unless there is a specific exemption.

The sweep of the law permitting the carrying of weapons is broad, Forrest wrote. ``If it is too broad, it is up to the Legislature, not this court, to narrow it.''

Judge Walter Webster Jr. dissented, saying that, while the law is broad, it was not intended to prevent such municipal groups from an agreement with an employees' union limiting weapons on the job.

The no-weapons policy is part of a contract between the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 587, and Metro.

Cherry, who now is a part-time salesman for an organization for the disabled, declined to comment last night.

Cherry had contended that he was fired because of his reputation as a troublemaker. Metro said it adopted the regulation forbidding driver use of guns to protect drivers and passengers as well.

After the arbitrator's ruling, a King County Superior Court judge issued a summary judgment in the Cherry case. The appeals court ruling sends the case back to court for action on Cherry's other alleged violations not considered by the arbitrator.