I was disappointed,  to say the least, at the return email I received from you so I waited before replying so as not to react in haste. Previously I stuck to facts and did not bring things of a personal nature into the equation. I feel, however, that there are a few things you should know about me and how I have exemplified the ENRON VISION so you can realize why I took this so seriously and why am, to be blunt, ticked off at the resolution.
In the 4 years that I worked on the scheduling desk for Clinton I never missed a day of work.........not one.
I never took vacation during bid week or during tie out time.
Between 96 - 00 I took all but 3 days vacation between the months of May - October so as not to interfere with winter gas operations.
I have had nothing but above average reviews in the past 5 years,  been promoted twice, and received special recognition for working shorthanded through the winter of 99-00.
As you can see I have consistently put ENRON ahead of personal conveniences and strived to do the right thing for the company. I am distressed that the very values Enron holds me to ring hollow with regards to how I have been treated.
Changing vacation rules, be it legally legitimate, does not exemplify INTEGRITYin my eyes!
Not stating a policy change (THERE HAS STILL NEVER BEEN A FORMAL STATEMENT OF THIS CHANGE) does not illustrate COMMUNICATION!
Stating that I will be paid for vacation less any I take between now and the severance date is deceptive at the least and would not constitute RESPECT, EXCELLENCE nor INTEGRITY!
FACT - items 1 - 6 in the original email are 100% true. #2 is of the most significance as the words came from the lips of our HR representative that I would be paid the vacation amount we discussed UNLESS I TOOK ANY VACATION BETWEEN NOW AND JUNE 1st.
FACT - At least 2 people were allowed vacation time off during this transition (Susan Weison, Sheri Wallace)
FACT - If you check my vacation records you will find that I have taken a vacation EVERY YEAR IN MAY. My request was made, like in all previous years, a few weeks before I wanted to take it. HAD I KNOWN THAT THE RULES OF THE GAME WERE GOING TO BE CHANGED I WOULD HAVE MADE MY INTENTIONS KNOWN EARLIER.

In conclusion I do not expect, or even wish for a response. I have enjoyed my time with Clinton Energy and Enron. I have learned much and forwarded my career greatly and for that I am thankful. I just wanted you to know where I am coming from and how an unfortunate situation of severance was turned into one in which I leave being taught a lesson by Enron that does not make me a better person, just a smarter one. This lesson; a spotless record & loyalty to a company means very little. It is better to look out for #1. In the end the company you work for is going to protect their best interests regardless of the rhetoric in their Vision Statement. Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Sean Zurbrick




Judy Gray
05/04/2001 09:33 AM
To:	Sean Zurbrick/DUB/EES@EES
cc:	Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kenneth Lay/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Skilling/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kalen Pieper/HOU/EES@EES, Judy Gray/HOU/EES@EES, Ashley Kerr/HOU/EES@EES, Tim Weithman/DUB/EES@EES, Ken Brooks/DUB/EES@EES, Kriste Sullivan/Enron@EnronXGate 
Subject:	Re: Clinton Energy Vacation Policy & Request   

Sean;

Thank you for bringing your concerns to us.  We value the input of our employees, and constantly seek ways to improve the quality of our employee benefits.  After talking to some of the parties involved in this matter and reviewing our vacation policy, we find that your management acted within the scope of its responsibility and within the bounds of our vacation policy.  In addition, we find no evidence of inconsistencies and believe that you and your co-workers at Clinton have been treated equitably and fairly regarding the denial of vacation during this transition period. 

In closing, we support the decision to deny vacation requests to the Clinton employees affected by this transition.  Should you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to direct them to your management



Sean Zurbrick
05/01/2001 01:41 PM
To:	Kenneth Lay/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Skilling/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kalen Pieper/HOU/EES@EES
cc:	Judy Gray/HOU/EES@EES, Ashley Kerr/HOU/EES@EES, Tim Weithman/DUB/EES@EES, Ken Brooks/DUB/EES@EES 
Subject:	Clinton Energy Vacation Policy & Request

I have held discussions with Tim Weithman, Ashley Kerr & Ken Brooks (immediate supervisor) regarding a request for vacation for the 3rd or 4th week in May. I have been told recently by both Ms. Kerr as well as Mr. Weithman that those of us being severed from the company are not permitted to take any vacation time between now and June 1st. It would seem that there are several inconsistencies regarding Enron policy as well as how the subject was presented both to the group as well as individually. Below are the inconsistencies I speak of.

During the group meeting in the beginning of April there was no mention of "vacation freezes". The only reference to time that was mentioned was that you must be employed by Enron as of June 1, 2001 to receive the severance package.
During my private discussion, in which both Ms. Kerr and Ms. Gray were present, I was presented with the specifics of the severance package. I specifically remember being asked for my current unused vacation amount. I gave them the amount of 152 hours and was told that I would be reimbursed for that total unless, of course, I took any additional vacation. This implied that regular Enron vacation policies would be in effect. Again, at no time was it presented to me that I was ineligible to take ANY of my earned vacation or that there would be any deviations from normal Enron policy regarding vacation.
At no time has Mr. Weithman, Ms. Gray, Ms. Kerr or any other Enron agent made public a policy of vacation freezes.
At no time were there ever any public or private requests that the plans for those with previously scheduled vacations to be made available to any Enron agent.
I can find nothing in my severance package that states any deviation from the standard Enron vacation policy.
I realize that Enron policy requires vacation approval from the supervising employee. It states in that policy the following:
"An employee's preference for scheduling vacation should be adopted when possible."
"The supervisor must verify that unit staffing needs are met before approving an employee's vacation request."
I am currently still an Enron employee.  I have also verified that staffing needs are met. 

In summary, as you can see there are several inconsistencies with regards to the vacation policy for those being severed at Clinton Energy. It more than offends me that I am being prohibited from taken ANY part of the 152 hours of accrued vacation that is, by all accounts, mine to take. This being said, I am formally requesting one last time that I be granted my vacation request during the month of May. Furthermore I would like this approval as soon as possible so that I may make necessary arrangements. As you review this I am consulting an attorney so that I may be advised of my rights regarding this matter.

Thank you,

Sean Zurbrick
614-760-2792







<Embedded StdOleLink>