OVERALL ASSESSMENT. This lesson was successful in accomplishing: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Lesson objectives Integration of Core Content standards Effective implementation of lesson plans The lesson was conducted in an effective manner The lesson met standards and expectations
OVERALL ASSESSMENT. Mandatory Section ============================================================================== NOTE: If the current assessment is for a new Central Office, attachment 1A must also be completed and considered prior to acceptance. ============================================================================== There are three potential assessment categories:
1. Passes all criteria and is determined to be ready for service.
2. Conditionally ready for service with no "service affecting" discrepancies. Items that need to be resolved will be documented and NC&D will provide a timeline for resolution.
3. Not ready for service due to the nature of the deficiencies. ---------------- ----- -------------------- ------------------------------ Accepted |_| Rejected |_| ---------------- ----- -------------------- ------------------------------ Comments: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Name: --------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Signature: --------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Title: --------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Date: --------------------- --------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 1 New Central Office Switch -------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------------- CO Name: -------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------------- CLLI Identifier: Date: -------------- ------------------------------ ---------------------------------
1. Has NC&D provided a list of outstanding issues and known defects? Yes No
2. Has a schedule for correction of defects been provided? Yes No =============================================================================== NOTE: If the answer to either question 1 or 2 is No, STOP. Acceptance of the Central Office by NSO cannot be considered until these have been provided. =============================================================================== If items 1-3 outlined in the matrix be...
OVERALL ASSESSMENT. At the end of the Programme, final grading of the Student will be collated by UPO.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT. The stakeholders are generally satisfied with the Agreement. For the more general questions on the Agreement’s implementation, the majority of Cree and non-Cree stakeholders recognized the efforts made by all and stressed the parties’ goodwill. They defined this common will as a positive aspect making it possible to gradually build a relationship of trust and, ultimately, a viable partnership. Most are satisfied with the new opportunities for meeting and discussion created by the Agreement and see them as an opportunity to explain their viewpoint and understand that of the other party. The tallymen also appreciate their increased involvement in the forestry planning process. JWG members feel that they contribute positively to the Agreement’s implementation and TSFMA holders stress primarily the advantage of operating under a clear regime with clear mechanisms. The stakeholders’ general comments lead us to believe that the parties are committed, via the “Paix des braves”, to a collaborative learning process focussing on the search for “win-win” solutions. However, in response to more specific questions on the adapted forestry regime’s particular modalities, stakeholders voiced some dissatisfaction and hope for improvement. For example, some tallymen said they have observed no change yet in means of operating in the Territory. JWG members are unhappy about their lack of training in forestry techniques on one side and Cree culture on the other side. And, TSFMA holders complain about the very rigid normative context, which makes planning more complex and leaves little room for initiatives to harmonize silvicultural practices, and cite increased operating costs and decreased allowable cut since the Agreement was signed. These comments are not necessarily contradictory but rather the expression of stakeholders’ high expectations for the Agreement. It seems that while they do not question the Agreement’s validity, they hope to see its application improve on an ongoing basis. Criticism also pointed to the fact that stakeholders want to be part of the solution, which certainly augurs well. TSFMA holders nuanced this statement, pointing out that the parties did not really listen to them and that they had not been involved at all in designing the initial adapted forestry regime. In future, they consider it almost utopian to think that they will eventually contribute to the Agreement’s evolution but they continue to hope.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT. The case of GDF Suez is notable for several reasons. First of all, as for most of the EFAs so far negotiated (Xxxxxxx et al. 2013), the initiative to conclude the Health and Safety agreement came from the management. What is striking is that this case disconfirm the conclusions reached by those scholars assessing the behaviour of French multinationals towards EFAs. GDF Suez, deeply rooted in the French industrial relations system, choose to negotiate with the EWC and proved to be quite reluctant to engage in negotiations with the EMF and ETUFs in general. Indeed, for the Health and Safety agreement, it did not GDF SUEZ TRANSNATIONAL COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY: 33 EWC AS NEGOTIATING AGENT AND THE RELEVANCE OF THE ETUF LEADING ROLE consider any ETUF as negotiating partner, instead it proposed to initiate the negotiation to the EWC SNB. However, the Special Negotiating Body (SNB), negotiating the agreements on behalf of the whole EWC, was not only unionized, but its members had also received a sort of mandate to negotiate EFAs by the respective national trade unions, after explicit request to do so by the management. Notwithstanding that, the SNB has failed both in leading the negotiation and conclude a homogeneously accepted agreement. The finding is consistent with Waddington (2011)’s suggestion that it is not enough, for a EWC to be well functioning, to be fully unionized. For the EWC at stake two coordinators had been appointed, moreover, due to the complexity of the company, the role has been taken up by representatives of the two main ETUFs: EPSU and EMCEF. However, the quality of EPSU and EMCEF coordinators, in relation to the negotiation and conclusion of the Health and Safety agreement, has proved not be sufficient to strengthen the EWC during the negotiation process (see importance of quality of EWC coordinator in Waddington 2011). Indeed, the two coordinators did not engage at all in supporting the SNB’s requests to the management, as the demands to continue the negotiation and edit the text of the agreement in order to find a satisfying compromise. To this it can be added that some of the respondents mentioned the lack of enough expertise of the EWC members and the consequent need to be supported by the respective national trade unions. This very likely reinforces the already existing tendency of national representatives to pursue national interests (Xxxxxxx et al. 2013) and does not allow the development of a transnational identity...
OVERALL ASSESSMENT. The project is functioning properly. Trust Manager: China Foreign Economy and Trade Trust Co., Ltd. Date FOTIC China Foreign Economy and Trade Trust Co., Ltd. The accounting object of this annex is this Trust.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT. Members having qualified will be promoted on the basis of seniority. A selection board consisting of two Fire Services Managers, Human Resources Staff and one member appointed by the Union will make the overall assessment, and the assessment will consist of:
1. Promotional Evaluations
OVERALL ASSESSMENT a. Executive summary Overall, the project has achieved its main objectives and milestones for the final period (M19- M24). The consortium has also developed and delivered the expected outcomes. The project contributed to address a major education sector problem, designing a holistic framework architecture of digital services and products to support individuals’ competence development as a lifelong learning process. During the final reporting period (M19 – M24) a proof of concept of the project's ecosystem was tested in Finland but international deployment was limited. Various reasons (technical feasibility and additional financial investment required) resulted into the project not being able to mobilise stakeholders from outside Finland.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT a. Executive summary The project has achieved some of its objectives and milestones for the period (M1-M12); however, further explanations and some corrective actions will be required.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT. At the end of each degree programme, student results will be reviewed and processed by the ISLANDS Management Board.
