January 2016. 1. The Disability Pension Shortfall Scheme for Journalists of 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2015 shall apply to employees in the job category of Newspaper Journalists until 31 December 2015. Supplement in the event of full, non-permanent occupational disability 80-100%
January 2016. Amend Clause 27.1 .1 to read; The salaries and rates of pay listed in the Schedules set out in Section 5, Parts A-G of this Agreement incorporate an increase of 2.27% with effect from the first full pay period commencing on or after 1 November 2013 and a further increase of 2.27% from the first full pay period commencing on or after 1 July 2014 and shall be paid in accordance with this clause. An additional increase will be provided of 2.5% from the first full pay period commencing on or after 1 July 2015. Amend Clause 30 to read;
January 2016. The preparation of a LDP is a statutory duty placed on all Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) in Wales. The plan is a corporate tool and land-use expression of a LPAs priorities in dealing with national and local issues, and as such, the DA is a commitment by your authority to deliver on these key priorities. Effective project management and the availability of resources is essential to ensure the plan can be prepared in accordance with the timescales set out in Table 1 of the DA with a preparation period of 3.6 years plus a single additional slippage period of 3 months as set out in paragraph 4.2. This timescale broadly aligns with requirements in the Development Plans Manual (Edition 3) recognising that your authority already has an adopted plan in place supported by a number of evidence base documents. A test of soundness against which the plan will be considered through the examination is whether it adheres to the agreed DA including the Community Involvement Scheme (CIS). I note your DA received Council approval during the Coronavirus pandemic and as such, the CIS has been adjusted to reflect the latest Government advice and social distancing Planning Directorate •Cathays Park • Cardiff • CF10 3NQ Cyfarwyddiaeth Cynllunio• Parc Cathays • Caerdydd • CF10 3NQ We welcome receiving correspondence in Welsh. Any Rydym yn croesawu derbyn gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg. Byddwn yn
January 2016. If this salary is lower than the starting salary for an employee's pay grade for 2016 (see Appendix I), the salary will be raised up to the starting salary. After all, every employee must at least earn the starting salary of their pay grade. Example: an employee who earned the starting salary of their pay grade in 2015, and who performed up to the required standard in 2015, will go up one step in their pay grade (increment). However, their new salary may be lower than the new starting salary of the pay grade in question, as a result of the decision to raise the starting salaries of most pay grades. If so, this employee will earn the new starting salary of their pay grade from 1 January 2016. Any salary below the starting salary is not valid. The following applies to employees who were in the highest pay grade step in 2015. From 1 January 2016, they receive the annual wage rise (indexation) agreed by the parties to the collective labour agreement on top of their 2015 salary. The fact that the final salary of various pay grades was raised as of 1 January 2016 (see explanatory notes to Article 10) does not affect these employees' salary for 2016. Needless to say, this increase in final salaries does ensure that these employees' salaries can grow at the applicable rate from 1 January 2017. This rate depends on the remaining steps in the pay grade, the applicable remuneration system, and the employee's performance. Example: the final salary of pay grade 7 was raised by 2% from 1 January 2016. An employee who was on the highest step of pay grade 7 in 2015 and who's pay is governed by the remuneration system with fixed increments, would in case of adequate performance be entitled to a 2.5% increment from 1 January 2017. However, their pay grade does not offer room for this. The maximum wage rise in this example is therefore 2%. For more information, visit xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.
January 2016. The obligation of the Buyer to make the Installment Payment shall be unconditional, with no right of set-off (including any equitable or common law rights of set-off) relating to claims, demands, causes of action or proceedings under this Agreement (including any Warranty Claims, Claims for a breach of covenant or a Claim for any action or omission of CCOL) or otherwise. On Completion, the Buyer must deliver to CCOL an irrevocable standby letter of credit (the “CCOL Letter of Credit”), issued by a financial institution reasonably satisfactory to CCOL, in an amount equal to the Installment Payment. Terms of the standby letter of credit shall be customary and, with respect to presentment, shall only require an officer of CCOL to certify that the Installment Payment has not been received by 4 January 2016. For United States federal income tax purposes, CCOL intends to report its sale of shares to the Buyer under the “installment method”, as defined under Section 453(c) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Immediately following receipt of the Installment Payment by CCOL it must return the CCOL Letter of Credit to the Buyer.
January 2016 because they served their prison terms, have been released from custody on 27 parole, or have been transferred to other housing units”); see also id. ¶ 28 (stating that RCGP 28 inmates can be transferred out of RCGP to a non-designated programming facility for reasons 1 other than the existence of threats to their safety, such as “hav[ing] demonstrated a positive 2 programming attitude, a desire to break free of prison gangs and politics, and a desire to complete 3 their prison terms in a violence-free manner”). Accordingly, the Court cannot infer based on the 4 release of the seventy inmates in question that Defendants’ policies and practices result in 5 meaningful periodic reviews. 6 In sum, the Court finds that the ICC’s periodic reviews of class members’ RCGP 7 placements systemically are not meaningful and that the manner in which Defendants conduct 8 them results in a significant risk of erroneous RCGP retention. 9 United States District Court Northern District of California
January 2016
