Document gDxzg3nzQJQJ66Mky4Bvaee1J

Hr. Z. A. Weaver Chicago, Illinois Ncvenber l, 195-!. In reply to your latter of Kovenber l6oh, I Teel that as a plant policy we should physically exseins and x-ray any prosp eciive ecployee 'ho will be a full tine eeployee at the Tyler plant. If you are hiring construction workers wfcon you know will not be used when the plant goes into procusnicn, I agree that we should not go through the exoer.se of having then x-rayed. If any =:plcyee worked for us for several years in any capacity, such as office, supervision, vatchran, procucticn worker, and then filed a dais against us alleging than their lungs were affected by the asbestos dust that they breathed while working for us, we would be in a very poor position to defend the case if we did not have a pre-hiring physical and chest x-ray in our files with which to cor^are the current ecrdioicn that the enplcyee alleges. The pre-hiring physical also will serve to eliminate any prospective ecployee who has a questionable chest x-ray that could give us trouble in the event of a clain filed several years later. The fact that an ecployee in our eyes was not exposed to any asbestos dust because they were employed in the office, etc. will not have any influence on the decision of an Industrial Cassission. Actually this policy is only a precaution against any false clair that an unscrupulous sxployes eight file against us. EAH:lh WAS NOT A We! 81 | BB 0024305 |