Karl Aitken testified Wednesday (Jan. 28) for the defense in a case in which two former employees allege IBM exposed them to toxic chemicals and hid details of the health affects of their exposures. The two plaintiffs later developed cancer.

"I believe [the clean room] was a safe place to work. It was safe with the chemicals we worked with," said Aitken, a first-line manager for plaintiff Alida Hernandez from February 1986 to December 1987.

Aitken described a number of routine chemical training and medical monitoring procedures IBM had in place at the plant. An 11-year employee of IBM and now a Cisco Systems Inc. supply manager, Aitken said it was his top priority as an IBM manager to make sure the work environment was healthy and safe for employees.

Machines at the plant included shielding and ventilation and workers were required to use gloves and goggles on the job to prevent direct contact with chemicals, Aitken said. In earlier testimony, Hernandez said she frequently got disk-coating chemicals on her clothes and on her body in the course of doing her job.

IBM maintained records of all chemicals used in the workplace, data sheets on their potential health hazards and a chemical safety handbook that employees were required to read, Aitken said. IBM labeled one of the chemicals used at Hernandez's work site, so-called phenol resin R108, as a "suspected carcinogen."

As part of IBM's procedures, all employees such as Hernandez who worked on hard-disk coating machines had annual chemical training and medical exams that included blood tests for liver dysfunction, a sign of potential chemical poisoning. Due to results on at least one of those tests in June 1986, IBM doctors restricted Hernandez from working on disk-coating machines for about two months. She was later allowed to return to that job after doctors apparently concluded the test results were not linked to chemical exposure at work.

After being assigned to administrative duties in another location, Hernandez asked if the restriction could be lifted. "She was pretty bored. It was make-work stuff, and she was anxious to go back to her regular duties," said Aitken.

Aitken contradicted earlier testimony that suggested IBM managers attempted to minimize or even deny possible health risks at the plant that could be due to chemical exposure. "If an employee was not feeling well, we would send them to the medical department, and I was never criticized for doing so," he said.

Under cross-examination, Aitken said he had no recollection of some of the IBM medical and chemical records shown at the trial, including medical status reports for Hernandez. Parts of his testimony were based on having reviewed the records with IBM attorneys over the course of four recent meetings of a total of about ten hours, he said.

Aitken also noted that there was an "underlying sweet smell" at the plant that extended into the hallway beyond the clean room. He attributed the smell to one of the disk-coating ingredients. However, he said he received no employee complaints about the smell.

Aiken said workers typically used only small amounts of acetone to clean coating machines on a daily and weekly basis. However, Joseph Russell, an attorney for the plaintiffs, noted the acetone label directed users to avoid inhalation, something that would be impossible to do if they were required to use it to clean the machines.

"They could manage the amount of acetone they used and the number of times they used it," said Aitken.

"But they still had to do their job," said Russell.

"Yes," Aitken replied.

An IBM attorney noted the machines had regularly inspected exhaust facilities that were intended to provide required ventilation for the acetone.