Non-Precedential Effect. This Settlement is not intended by the Settling Parties to be precedent for any future proceeding. The Settling Parties have assented to the terms of this Settlement only for the purpose of arriving at the settlement embodied in this Settlement.
Non-Precedential Effect. The College and the Association acknowledge and agree that the resolution of this matter is based solely on the unique circumstances involved in including the Clinical Skills Nursing lnstructors in the current full-time faculty bargaining unit. The parties agree that this Memorandum of Agreement will not bind them with respect to the treatment of any other employment position within the College with regard to the terms and conditions of employment or inclusion in the full-time faculty bargaining unit. Parties further agree that this Memorandum of Agreement is no way intended to re-open for negotiation the CBA between the College and the Association and that the terms herein are intended to only apply to the position of Clinical Skills Nursing lnstructor subject to inclusion in the bargaining unit. ln addition, the parties agree not to submit this Memorandum of Agreement in any labor arbitration or state or federal administrative or judicial court as evidence of the parties' alleged past practice regarding the parties' treatment of any future request by College employees for terms and conditions of employment under the CBA or request for inclusion in the full-time faculty bargaining unit.
Non-Precedential Effect. This Settlement Agreement is not intended by the Joint Parties to be binding precedent for any future proceeding, or for resolution of any issues pertaining to SDG&E in this consolidated proceeding. The Joint Parties have assented to the terms of this Settlement Agreement only for the purpose of arriving at the settlement embodied in this Settlement Agreement. Each Settling Party expressly reserves its right to advocate, in current and future proceedings, positions, principles, assumptions, arguments and methodologies which may be different than those under-lying this Settlement Agreement, and the Joint Parties expressly declare that, as provided in Rule 51.8 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Settlement Agreement should not be considered as a precedent for or against them. The Settlement explicitly does not establish any precedent on the litigated revenue requirement issues in the case, even though the Settlement adopts revenue requirement reductions identified with specific FERC accounts and disputed items. For instance, items for which reduced funding have been agreed to, but for which no precedent is established regarding the right to record such costs in utility accounts or to recover such costs in a future case include (but are not limited to) the following: costs associated with the regional public affairs department; costs associated with incentive compensation and other benefits; costs associated with D&O insurance; costs associated with the Corporate Center or shared services; and whether interest bearing customer deposits should be considered in the calculation of working cash requirements. Likewise, the Settlement explicitly does not establish any precedent on the litigated policy issues in the case, even though the Settlement adopts certain explicit positions on these issues, including but not limited to the following: depreciation methodology, capitalization policy, and personal computer life cycle. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Settlement does establish expectations with respect to the rate of replacement of certain SoCalGas gas meters and with respect to the level of leak backlogs, as set forth specifically in this Settlement above.
Non-Precedential Effect. The Union agrees that the Employer’s recognition of the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for the affected employees pursuant to Paragraph One (1), above, shall not constitute an express or implied Agreement to recognize the Union by those mentioned immediately below in this paragraph, nor shall it have any precedential effect in determining any question regarding employee representation or non- representation, by the Union or any other Union, with respect to: (a) any other corporation, business or asset that is currently or subsequently purchased, acquired, developed, constructed, improved, operated, managed, owned, or otherwise run by the Employer and/or any parent, subsidiary, or related entity or corporation, or (b) any third party Contractor, Sub-Contractor, Vendor, or Concessionaire that employs employees at, in or around, DCA. The Union agrees that this Addendum shall not be used or offered by the Union as evidence in any proceeding or hearing, including but not limited to grievance meetings, arbitration hearings, lawsuits, NLRB proceedings, trials, or other adjudicatory proceedings, to determine whether the Union, or any Union, will or should represent employees of (a) any business or asset, including DCA, that is purchased, acquired, developed, constructed, improved, operated, managed, owned, or otherwise run by the Employer and/or any parent, subsidiary, or related entity or corporation, or (b) any third party Contractor, Sub-Contractor, Vendor, or Concessionaire that has employees at DCA. The Union further acknowledges and agrees that DCA is a separate and distinct theme park that shall not constitute an accretion within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act to the existing unit represented by the Union at Disneyland®. The Union further agrees that it will not hereinafter contend, support, or otherwise take a position contrary to the above in any proceeding or hearing, including but not limited to grievance meetings, arbitrations, lawsuits, NLRB proceedings, or any other adjudicatory proceeding.
Non-Precedential Effect. This MOU is non-precedential and not binding or enforceable after December 31, 2021, unless extended by mutual agreement of the Parties.
Non-Precedential Effect. This Settlement Agreement is not intended by the Settling Parties to be precedent for any other proceeding, whether pending or instituted in the future. The Settling Parties have assented to the terms of this Settlement Agreement only to arrive at the Settlement embodied in this Settlement Agreement. Each Settling Party expressly reserves its right to advocate, in current and future proceedings, positions, principles, assumptions, arguments and methodologies that may be different than those underlying this Settlement Agreement. The Settling Parties expressly declare that, as provided in Rule 12.5 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Settlement Agreement is intended to be binding on all parties to the proceeding but should not be considered as a precedent for or against them. The Settling Parties have bargained in good faith to reach the agreement set forth herein. The Settling Parties intend the Settlement Agreement, to be interpreted as a unified, interrelated agreement. The Settling Parties agree that no provision of this Settlement Agreement shall be construed against any Settling Party because a particular party or its counsel drafted the provision. The rights conferred and obligations imposed on any of the Settling Parties by this Settlement Agreement shall inure to the benefit of or be binding on that Settling Party’s successors in interest or assignees as if such successor or assignee was itself a party to this Settlement Agreement.
Non-Precedential Effect. The District and the Union acknowledge and agree that the decision to enter into this Memorandum of Agreement is based solely on the unique circumstances relating to the Affected Member’s Notice of Retirement. Specifically, the Notice of Retirement was entered into in reliance on the Teachers’ Retirement System of Illinois’ (“TRS’”) Early Retirement Option (“ERO”) as set forth under Public Act 98-0042. The ERO allowed qualified TRS members the option to retire early without reduction in their pension benefits if they were at least 55 years old and had at least 20, but not more than 35, years of service. The General Assembly of Illinois, however, failed to extend the ERO provision of Public Act 98-0042 before its expiration on July 1, 2016, thereby prohibiting TRS members from retiring early without accepting a reduction in their pension benefits. The parties further agree that this Memorandum of Agreement shall not bind them with respect to the parties’ respective treatment of any future situations involving a Union member’s request to revoke his or her irrevocable notice of retirement. In addition, the parties agree not to submit this Memorandum of Agreement to any labor arbitrator or state or federal administrative or judicial court as evidence of the parties’ alleged past practice regarding the parties’ treatment of any future situations involving irrevocable notices of retirement.
Non-Precedential Effect. This SA is not intended by the Joint Parties to be precedent for any future proceeding. The Joint Parties have assented to the terms of this SA only for the purpose of arriving at the settlement embodied in this SA. Except as expressly precluded in this SA, each of the Joint Parties expressly reserves its right to advocate, in current and future proceedings, positions, principles, assumptions, arguments and methodologies which may be different than those underlying this SA, and the Joint Parties expressly declare that, as provided in Rule 12.5 of the Commission's Rules, this SA should not be considered as a precedent for or against them. Likewise, the SA explicitly does not establish any precedent on the litigated issues in the case. SI Thus, the sharing mechanism and annual shareholder earnings cap described above in Paragraph 15 will apply to the cumulative costs and revenues associated with the System Operator Hub, the existing unbundled storage program, and any storage expansions undertaken during the settlement period for the unbundled storage program as described in Paragraph 18.
Non-Precedential Effect. This Settlement Agreement is not intended by the Joint Parties to be binding precedent for any future proceeding. The Joint Parties have assented to the terms of this Settlement Agreement only for the purpose of arriving at the settlement embodied in this Settlement Agreement. Each Settling Party expressly reserves its right to advocate, in current and future proceedings, positions, principles, assumptions, arguments and methodologies which may be different than those under-lying this Settlement Agreement, and the Joint Parties expressly declare that, as provided in Rule 51.8 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Settlement Agreement should not be considered as a precedent for or against them. The Settlement explicitly does not establish any precedent on the litigated revenue requirement issues in the case, even though the Settlement adopts revenue requirement reductions identified with specific FERC accounts and disputed items. For instance, items for which reduced funding have been agreed to, but for which no precedent is established regarding the right to record such costs in utility accounts or to recover such costs in a future case include (but are not limited to) the following: costs associated with the regional public affairs department; costs associated with incentive compensation and other benefits; costs associated with D&O insurance; and whether interest bearing customer deposits should be considered in the calculation of working cash requirements.
