Written Decisions Decisions rendered at Level One which are unsatisfactory to the aggrieved person and all decisions rendered at Levels Two and Three of the grievance procedure shall be in writing setting forth the decision and the reasons therefore, and shall be transmitted promptly to all parties in interest and to the Association.
Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users? Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain. Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function. The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation? Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator? Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions? Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour. Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project? It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.
Final Decisions The Contracting Officer will issue a final decision as required by 33.211 if—
Arbitration Decisions Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the arbitrator(s) shall render a decision within ninety (90) Calendar Days of appointment and shall notify the Parties in writing of such decision and the reasons therefor. The arbitrator(s) shall be authorized only to interpret and apply the provisions of this LGIA and shall have no power to modify or change any provision of this Agreement in any manner. The decision of the arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding upon the Parties, and judgment on the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The decision of the arbitrator(s) may be appealed solely on the grounds that the conduct of the arbitrator(s), or the decision itself, violated the standards set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act or the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. The final decision of the arbitrator(s) must also be filed with FERC if it affects jurisdictional rates, terms and conditions of service, Interconnection Facilities, or Network Upgrades.
Hiring Decisions Contractor shall make the final determination of whether an Economically Disadvantaged Individual referred by the System is "qualified" for the position.
Exceptions to Informal Negotiations and Arbitration The Parties agree that the following Disputes are not subject to the above provisions concerning informal negotiations and binding arbitration: (a) any Disputes seeking to enforce or protect, or concerning the validity of, any of the intellectual property rights of a Party; (b) any Dispute related to, or arising from, allegations of theft, piracy, invasion of privacy, or unauthorized use; and (c) any claim for injunctive relief. If this provision is found to be illegal or unenforceable, then neither Party will elect to arbitrate any Dispute falling within that portion of this provision found to be illegal or unenforceable and such Dispute shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction within the courts listed for jurisdiction above, and the Parties agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of that court. CORRECTIONS There may be information on the Site that contains typographical errors, inaccuracies, or omissions, including descriptions, pricing, availability, and various other information. We reserve the right to correct any errors, inaccuracies, or omissions and to change or update the information on the Site at any time, without prior notice.
Resolution of disputes and grievances (a) For the purpose of this clause 14, a dispute includes a grievance.
ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 9. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan. SCHEDULE 5
Referral to Arbitration: Provincial Matters a. If the grievance is not resolved at Step Three within ten (10) working days of the meeting referred to in Article A.6.4, the BCTF or BCPSEA where applicable may refer a “provincial matters grievance,” as defined in Appendix 1 and Addenda, to arbitration within a further fifteen (15) working days.
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND ARBITRATION 8.01 For purposes of this Agreement, a grievance is defined as a difference arising between the parties relating to the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of the Agreement including any question as to whether a matter is arbitrable.
