|
|
Enron Mail |
Privileged and Confidential -- Advice Covered by the Attorney-Client Privilege
K2: I have copied this email to Sharon & Kriste, who are supporting the CALME region. My recommendation is to exclude contractors/consultants because their inclusion would increase the risk that they would be deemed to be employees, and that a court could determine that they are owed employee compensation and benefits (a la Microsoft). This exposure could be high. Depending on the other indicators of independent contractor status, rating them along side our employees could be a factor to tilt the balance. Let me know if you have any questions. Michelle ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- Michelle Cash Enron North America Corp. 1400 Smith Street, EB 3823 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 853-6401 michelle.cash@enron.com This message may contain confidential information that is protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. Kathryn McLean 06/27/2000 10:01 AM To: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@Enron Subject: CALME JV & Consultants Hi Michelle, Please see my note below regarding including JV employees and Consultants in our PEP system and the PRC. Could you please give us more expert legal advice (from my own : - )!!) in relation to this? We want to ensure that we cover ourselves. Thanks, K2. ---------------------- Forwarded by Kathryn McLean/HOU/ECT on 06/27/2000 09:51 AM --------------------------- Kathryn McLean 06/26/2000 09:12 AM To: David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Gina Corteselli/Corp/Enron@Enron, Janie Bonnard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Chris Cockrell/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Monica Cale/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: CALME JV & Consultants David, I've been forwarded a voicemail on Friday from David Haug where he has requested that we include CALME's JV employees and Consultants who are at the VP level. (He knows that they should not be pulled into the VP meeting). Monica and I initially pushed back on this due to the requirement that only AIP employees are involved in our mid year process, however, due to David's instance I'm reverting to you for a decision. Although I do not have a strong opinion on including the JV's - my concern is primarily with the Consultants. Below are my concerns in accommodating this request:- - The PEP system has officially told employees that the feedback stage has finished. Although the system is still open we are going to turn off the system message requesting reviewers to access PEP to review employee. In this instance, there would need to be an effort within Janie's team to communicate to all reviewers of the JV's that they are required to give feedback. - The way PEP is set up, we would need to load the consultants as employees in order to generate the 360 feedback functionality. Due to US law on how to describe employees/non employees in a database, this comes with legality issues and I want us to be aware of what we're doing regarding this. Call me to discuss or if you wish for me to forward the voicemail, K2
|