Document kDozo1O61Nkk77p0YMrXJdXaV

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Date: From: Dept: Tel No: 30-Jul-1991 11:06am CDT Loren Wassell WASSELL, LOREN W. MCC (314) 694-7002 TO: G. F. Fort ( FORT, GARTH F. ) CC: CC: CC: cc: CC: CC: CC: CC: CC: CC: Laurence J. O'Neill COLLINS, JAMES J FRIEDLANDER, BARRY EVANS, THOMAS F PIERLE, MICHAEL A HENSHAW, JOHN L VANDIVER , DONNA M Kevin S. Cahill Rita A. Hartmann Nancy J. Pollock ( O'NEILL, LAURENCE J. ( JJCOLLl@CCMAIL ) ( BRFRIE@CCMAIL ) ( TFEVAN@CCMAIL ) ( MAPIER0 CCMAIL ) ( JLHENS0CCMAIL ) ( DMVAND0ICF ) ( CAHILL, KEVIN S. ) ( HARTMANN, RITA A. ) ( POLLOCK, NANCY J. ) ) Subject: EMPLOYEE HEALTH/EXPOSURE COMMUNICATION Garth, Thank you for sharing the draft Employee Health and Exposure Communications Procedure with MCC Public Affairs. Since we are currently involved in several projects related to this kind of communication, the subject is timely. The identified role for public affairs is appropriate. We hope we are helpers, to be called upon as needed, rather than as "another" hurdle to pass. That there be effective communication is what's important, not who's involved. I wonder if it's appropriate to have the affected DEO request communication to employees. Are there occasions when communication is inappropriate? Would it be better to make communication of the results routine, the rule rather than the exception? If this is the appropriate forum, I would also raise the question of the media we use for these communications. From my recent involvement, I have learned that the usual procedure is a bulletin board posting, handout and/or a presentation) in the workplace. However, many -- or even most -- of the affected workers may have long since retired or moved to other jobs. I would suggest an appropriate procedure would provide for individual dissemination of our own study results (and, in some cases, results of other studies) to current employees, retirees, and former employees, at least when these individuals are significantly affected. (In short, a letter to homes, especially for those no longer on the job at Monsanto.) DEOs -- or Public Affairs -- are not particularly well equipped for this notification, in that we don't have the employee rosters required. Some DSk 134312 STLCOPCB4034270 involvement by Human Resources seems mandatory, but perhaps the listings could best be generated as an adjunct to the process of surveying the health of the same individuals who would be notified later. (I understand Dow does something like this.) In my view, individual letters to inform people who may (or may not) have health concerns about exposures on the job while working at Monsanto is the best way to meet the standard of "the right thing to do." Thanks for the opportunity to get it on record. Feel free to call on us for help in developing the clear and accurate messages required. Loren Wassell DSW 134313 STLCOPCB4034271