Determination in Current Position Sample Clauses

Determination in Current Position. (a) If an employee is found to be unfit for his/her current position based on a new criminal records check and the Agency proceeds under Article 20, the employee retains all Article 20 rights.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Determination in Current Position. A. If an employee is found to be unfit for his/her current position based on a new criminal records check and the Agency proceeds under Article 4.1, the employee retains all Article 4.1
Determination in Current Position a. If an employee is found to be unfit for his/her current position based on a criminal records check and the Agency proceeds under Article 6, the employee retains all Article 6 rights.

Related to Determination in Current Position

  • Eligibility Determination The State or its designee will make eligibility determinations for each of the HHSC HMO Programs.

  • Position Level Select whether the employee's position level is one of the following: 6a. Non supervisory - Anyone who does not have supervisory/team leader responsibilities.

  • Penalty Determination H&SC section 39619.7 requires CARB to provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This Agreement includes this information, which is also summarized here. The provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provision being applied in this case is H&SC section 42402 et seq. because Family Dollar sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured for sale consumer products for commerce in California in violation of the Consumer Products Regulations (17 CCR section 94507 et seq.). The penalty provisions of H&SC section 42402 et seq. apply to violations of the Consumer Products Regulations because the regulations were adopted under authority of H&SC section 41712, which is in Part 4 of Division 26. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and mitigating factors and per unit or per vehicle basis for the penalty. H&SC section 42402 et seq. provides strict liability penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violations of the Consumer Product Regulations with each day being a separate violation. In cases like this, involving unintentional violations of the Consumer Products Regulations where the violator cooperates with the investigation, CARB has obtained penalties based on the excess emissions of VOCs. Administrative penalties are also obtained in some cases. In this case, the total penalty is $4000 for emission violations. The per-unit penalty was based on 0.23 tons of excess VOC emissions. The penalty in this case was reduced because this was a strict liability first-time violation and Family Dollar made diligent efforts to cooperate with the investigation. Additionally, Family Dollar is no longer selling Modesa Extra Firm Holding Hairspray and Family Dollar Extra Firm Hold Hairspray. Final penalties were determined based on the unique circumstances of this matter, considered together with the need to remove any economic benefit from noncompliance, the goal of deterring future violations and obtaining swift compliance, the consideration of past penalties in similar negotiated cases, and the potential cost and risk associated with litigating these particular violations. The penalty reflects violations extending over a number of days resulting in quantifiable harm to the environment considered together with the complete circumstances of this case. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger on a per ton basis. The final penalty in this case was based in part on confidential financial information or confidential business information provided by Family Dollar that is not retained by CARB in the ordinary course of business. The penalty in this case was also based on confidential settlement communications between CARB and Family Dollar that CARB does not retain in the ordinary course of business. The penalty also reflects CARB’s assessment of the relative strength of its case against Family Dollar, the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden and expense of litigation, obtain swift compliance with the law and remove any unfair advantage that Family Dollar may have secured from its actions. Is the penalty being assessed under a provision of law that prohibits the emission of pollution at a specified level, and, if so a quantification of excess emissions, if it is practicable to do so. The Consumer Product Regulations do not prohibit emissions above a specified level, but they do limit the concentration of VOCs in regulated products. In this case, a quantification of the excess emissions attributable to the violations was practicable because Family Dollar gave sales data necessary to make this quantification. Based upon this information (which Family Dollar has designated as confidential), the violations were calculated to have 0.23 tons of excess VOC emissions emitted in California.

  • RELIEVING IN HIGHER AND LOWER-RATED POSITIONS 23.01 In the event of an employee relieving in a higher-rated job, the employee shall receive the hourly rate of the position they are relieving for any and all hours relieving.

  • Proposed Annual Caps The table below sets out (i) the historical transaction amounts for the two years ended 31 December 2020 and the eight months ended 31 August 2021; and (ii) the annual caps for the service fees receivable and payable by the Group pursuant to the 2019 Operation Services Agreement and the 2018 Business Travel Services Agreement for the three years ending 31 December 2021: Historical transaction amounts for the year ended 31 December Historical transaction amount for the eight months ended 31 August Announced annual caps for the year ended/ending 31 December 2019 2020 2021 2019 2020 2021 RMB million (Audited) RMB million (Audited) RMB million (Unaudited) RMB million RMB million RMB million Service fees receivable by the Group for the provision of operation services to the Geely Holding Group and the XXXX & CO Group 51.0 547.0 583.2 159.1 1,198.4 1,964.5 Utilisation rate of annual caps Service fees payable to the Geely Holding Group for the provision of operation services to the Group 31.0 79.0 99.5 32.0% 51.8 45.6% 207.3 29.7% (Note) 269.5 Utilisation rate of annual caps Service fees payable to the Geely Holding Group for the provision of business travel services to the Group 103.0 53.0 139.6 59.8% 356.8 38.1% 482.0 36.9% (Note) 661.6 Utilisation rate of annual caps 28.9% 11.0% 21.1% (Note) Note: Utilisation rate of the annual cap for the year ending 31 December 2021 was calculated by dividing the historical transaction amount for the eight months ended 31 August 2021 by the announced annual cap for the full financial year ending 31 December 2021. The relatively low utilisation rates of annual caps for the service fees payable and receivable by the Group for the provision of operation services and the service fees payable by Group for business travel services procured from the Geely Holding Group for the year ended 31 December 2019 and 2020 was in line with the decrease in demand and sales volume of Geely- branded vehicles in 2019 and 2020 mainly due to the worsened economy in 2019 and the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020. The table below sets out the proposed annual caps pursuant to the Operation Services Agreement for each of the three years ending 31 December 2024. 2022 2023 2024 RMB million RMB million RMB million 1,954.2 2,258.7 2,708.3 Proposed annual caps for the year ending 31 December Service fees receivable by the Group for the provision of operation services to the Geely Holding Group and the XXXX & CO Group Service fees payable to the Geely Holding Group and the XXXX & CO Group for the provision of operation services to the Group 388.6 426.9 484.6

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.