Incorrect Classification Review. When any employee feels that his/her position has been unfairly or incorrectly classified, the employee may submit a request for review in accordance with the procedure outlined in Schedule "B".
Incorrect Classification Review Sample Clauses
Related to Incorrect Classification Review
Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure: A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have. B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit. C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant. D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable. E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.
Claims Review Methodology a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject to the Quarterly Claims Review.
Client Classification 7.1. We shall not have an obligation to treat our clients in different classes depending on their knowledge and expertise.
Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.
Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be whether Good Shepherd was in material breach of this CIA and, if so, whether: a. Good Shepherd cured such breach within 30 days of its receipt of the Notice of Material Breach; or b. the alleged material breach could not have been cured within the 30-day period, but that, during the 30-day period following Good Shepherd’s receipt of the Notice of Material Breach: (i) Good Shepherd had begun to take action to cure the material breach; (ii) Good Shepherd pursued such action with due diligence; and (iii) Good Shepherd provided to OIG a reasonable timetable for curing the material breach. For purposes of the exclusion herein, exclusion shall take effect only after an ALJ decision favorable to OIG, or, if the ALJ rules for Good Shepherd, only after a DAB decision in favor of OIG. Good Shepherd’s election of its contractual right to appeal to the DAB shall not abrogate OIG’s authority to exclude Good Shepherd upon the issuance of an ALJ’s decision in favor of OIG. If the ALJ sustains the determination of OIG and determines that exclusion is authorized, such exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the ALJ issues such a decision, notwithstanding that Good Shepherd may request review of the ALJ decision by the DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of OIG after an ALJ decision adverse to OIG, the exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the DAB decision. Good Shepherd shall waive its right to any notice of such an exclusion if a decision upholding the exclusion is rendered by the ALJ or DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of Good Shepherd, Good Shepherd shall be reinstated effective on the date of the original exclusion.
Job Classification Full-Time and Part-Time (a) When a new classification (which is covered by the terms of this Collective Agreement) is established by the Hospital, the Hospital shall determine the rate of pay for such new classification and notify the Local Union of the same within seven (7) days. If the local challenges the rate, it shall have the right to request a meeting with the Hospital to endeavor to negotiate a mutually satisfactory rate. Such request will be made within ten (10) days after the receipt of notice from the Hospital of such new occupational classification and rate. Any change mutually agreed to resulting from such meeting shall be retroactive to the date that notice of the new rate was given by the Hospital. If the parties are unable to agree, the dispute concerning the new rate may be submitted to arbitration as provided in the Agreement within fifteen (15) days of such meeting. The decision of the Board of Arbitration (or Arbitrator as the case may be) shall be based on the relationship established by comparison with the rates for other classifications in the bargaining unit having regard to the requirements of such classification. (b) When the Hospital makes a substantial change during the term of this agreement in the job content of an existing classification which in reality causes such classification to become a new classification, the Hospital agrees to meet with the Union, to permit the Union to make representation with respect to the appropriate rate of pay. (c) If the matter is not resolved following the meeting with the Union the matter may be referred to arbitration as provided in the Agreement within fifteen (15) days of such meeting. The decision of the Arbitrator shall be based on the relationship established by comparison with the rates for other classifications in the bargaining unit having regard to the requirements of such classifications. (d) The parties further agree that any change mutually agreed to or awarded as a result of arbitration shall be retroactive only to the date that the Union raised the issue with the Hospital.
Random Testing Notwithstanding any provisions of the Collective Agreement or any special agreements appended thereto, section 4.6 of the Canadian Model will not be applied by agreement. If applied to a worker dispatched by the Union, it will be applied or deemed to be applied unilaterally by the Employer. The Union retains the right to grieve the legality of any imposition of random testing in accordance with the Grievance Procedure set out in this Collective Agreement.
Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.
Completion of Review for Certain Review Receivables Following the delivery of the list of the Review Receivables and before the delivery of the Review Report by the Asset Representations Reviewer, the Servicer may notify the Asset Representations Reviewer if a Review Receivable is paid in full by the Obligor or purchased from the Issuer in accordance with the terms of the Basic Documents. On receipt of such notice, the Asset Representations Reviewer will immediately terminate all Tests of the related Review Receivable, and the Review of such Review Receivables will be considered complete (a “Test Complete”). In this case, the related Review Report will indicate a Test Complete for such Review Receivable and the related reason.
Utilization Review NOTE: The Utilization Review process does not apply to Services that are not covered by Blue Shield because of a coverage determination made by Medicare. State law requires that health plans disclose to Subscribers and health plan providers the process used to authorize or deny health care services un- der the plan. Blue Shield has completed documen- tation of this process ("Utilization Review"), as required under Section 1363.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. To request a copy of the document describing this Utilization Review pro- cess, call the Customer Service Department at the telephone number indicated on your Identification Card.
