Position Review Process Sample Clauses

Position Review Process. (a) The University, employee, or employee representative may request that a position be reviewed when the requesting party believes that the basis of its request has become a permanent requirement of the position. Employees and employee representatives may not request that a position be reviewed more often than once every six (6) months. (b) The request must be complete and in writing on forms provided by the University. Requests may be submitted to Human Resources or to an employee’s direct supervisor or department. Any party may submit additional information, including the names of individuals, which the party believes is relevant to the position review. (c) An employee may request that a representative be present as an observer at meetings with the University reviewer scheduled to discuss the request for position review. At the employee's request a portion of such meetings shall be conducted in a quiet and private location, away from the work station. (d) The University reviewer will investigate the position and issue a written response to the employee or employee representative within sixty (60) calendar days from receipt, by Human Resources, of the completed request. The response will include notification of the class and salary assigned when the position is reallocated, or notification of the reasons the position does not warrant reallocation when the request is not approved. Reclass requests may be submitted at either the departmental level or directly to Human Resources. Reclass requests submitted at the departmental level must be forwarded to Human Resources within thirty (30) calendar days. (e) The effective date of allocations or reallocations initiated by the University shall be determined by the University. The effective date of a reallocation resulting from an employee or employee representative request for position review will be established as the 1st or the 16th of the month which precedes the date that the completed request was filed with Human Resources or the employee’s direct supervisor or department, whichever date is earliest. The date of receipt must be appropriately documented. (f) An employee may request reconsideration following receipt of the University's determination. Requests for reconsideration will not hold the timeframe for filing an appeal under this Article.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (64)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Position Review Process. A. The Employer or employee representative may request that a position be reviewed when the requesting party believes that the basis of its request has become a permanent requirement of the position. Employees and employee representatives may not request that a position be reviewed more often than once every six (6) months. B. The request must be complete and in writing on forms provided by the Employer. Requests may be submitted to IHME Human Resources. C. The UWHR Compensation Office will investigate the position and issue a written response to the employee or employee representative within sixty (60) calendar days from receipt, by Human Resources, of the completed request. The response will include notification of the class and salary assigned when the position is reallocated, or notification of the reasons the position does not warrant reallocation when the request is not approved. D. The effective date of allocations or reallocations initiated by the Employer shall be determined by the Employer. The effective date of a reallocation resulting from an employee representative request for position review will be established as the 1st or the 16th of the month which precedes the date that the completed request was filed with IHME Human Resources or the employee’s direct supervisor or department, whichever date is earliest. The date of receipt must be appropriately documented.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)
Position Review Process. 40 A. The Employer or employee representative may request that a position be reviewed 41 when the requesting party believes that the basis of its request has become a 42 permanent requirement of the position, either through reclassification or proposing a new 43 classification. Employees and employee representatives may not request that a position 44 be reviewed more often than once every six (6) months. 45 B. The request must be complete and in writing on forms provided by the Employer. 46 Requests may be submitted to Libraries or Law Human Resources. 47 C. The UWHR Compensation Office will investigate the position and issue a written 48 response to the employee or employee representative within sixty (60) calendar days 49 from receipt, by Human Resources, of the completed request. The response will include 50 notification of the class and salary assigned when the position is reallocated or 51 notification of the reasons the position does not warrant reallocation when the request is 52 not approved. 53 D. The effective date of allocations or reallocations initiated by the Employer shall be 54 determined by the Employer. The effective date of a reallocation resulting from an 55 employee representative request for position review will be established as the 1st or the 56 16th of the month which precedes the date that the completed request was filed with 57 Libraries or Law HR or the employee’s direct supervisor or department, whichever date 58 is earliest. The date of receipt must be appropriately documented.
Sample 1Sample 2See All (4)
Position Review Process. (a) The University, employee, or employee representative may request that a position be reviewed when the requesting party believes that the basis of its request has become a permanent requirement of the position. Employees and employee representatives may not request that a position be reviewed more often than once every six (6) months. (b) The request must be complete and in writing on forms provided by the University. Requests may be submitted to Human Resources or to an employee’s direct supervisor or department. Any party may submit additional information, including the names of individuals, which the party believes is relevant to the position review. (c) An employee may request that a representative be present as an observer at meetings with the University reviewer scheduled to discuss the request for position
Sample 1Sample 2
Position Review Process. (a) The University, employee, or employee representative may request that a position be reviewed when the requesting party believes that the basis of its request has become a permanent requirement of the position. Employees and employee representatives may not request that a position be reviewed more often than once every six (6) months. (b) The request must be complete and in writing on forms provided by the University. Requests may be submitted to Human Resources or to an employee’s direct supervisor or department. Any party may submit additional information, including the names of individuals, which the party believes is relevant to the position review. (c) An employee may request that a representative be present as an observer at meetings with the University reviewer scheduled to discuss the request for position review. At the employee's request a portion of such meetings shall be conducted in a quiet and private location, away from the work station. (d) The University reviewer will investigate the position and issue a written response to the employee or employee representative within sixty (60) calendar days from receipt, by Human Resources, of the completed request. A completed request is defined as the employee completing all employee portions of the reclassification forms. The response will include notification of the class and salary assigned when the position is reallocated, or notification of the reasons the position does not warrant reallocation when the request is not approved. Reclass requests may be submitted at either the departmental level or directly to Human Resources. Reclass requests submitted at the departmental level must be forwarded to Human Resources within thirty (30) calendar days.
Sample 1
Position Review Process. (a) The University, employee, or employee representative may request that a position be 9 reviewed when the requesting party believes that the basis of its request has become 10 a permanent requirement of the position. Employees and employee representatives 11 may not request that a position be reviewed more often than once every six (6) 12 months. (b) The request must be complete and in writing on forms provided by the University. 15 Requests may be submitted to Human Resources or to an employee’s direct 16 supervisor or department. Any party may submit additional information, including the 17 names of individuals, which the party believes is relevant to the position review.
Sample 1
Position Review Process. 55 A. The Employer or employee may request that a position be reviewed when the 56 requesting party believes that the basis of its request has become a permanent 57 requirement of the position. A position review requires a current performance 58 evaluation (completed within the previous twelve (12) months). Employees may 59 not request that a position be reviewed more often than once every six (6) 60 months. 61 B. The request must be complete and in writing on forms provided by the Employer. 62 C. The UWHR Compensation Office will investigate the position and issue a written 63 response within sixty (60) calendar days from receipt, by Human Resources, of 64 the completed request. The response will include notification of the class and 65 salary assigned when the position is reclassified, or notification of the reasons 66 the position does not warrant reclassification when the request is not approved. 67 D. The effective date of classifications or reclassifications initiated by the Employer 68 shall be determined by the Employer. #The effective date of a reclassification 69 resulting from an employee request for position review will be established as the 70 1stor the 16th of the month which precedes the date that the completed request 71 was filed with UWHR Compensation Office or the employee’s direct supervisor or 72 department, whichever date is earliest. The date of receipt must be appropriately 73 documented. 74 75 76 77 78 Tentatively Agreed To: For the Union: For the Employer: 4/10/2023 4/10/2023 4/10/2023 4/10/2023 4/10/2023 4/11/2023 4/10/2023 79 80 81 82 1
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Position Review Process. The University, employee, or employee representative may request that a position be 44 reviewed when the requesting party believes that the basis of its request has become 45 a permanent requirement of the position. Employees and employee representatives 46 may not request that a position be reviewed more often than once every six (6) months.
Sample 1

Related to Position Review Process

  • Review Process A/E's Work Product will be reviewed by County under its applicable technical requirements and procedures, as follows:

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances 1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification. 2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination. 3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review. 4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments. B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings

  • Transition Review Period In accordance with Article 35, Layoff and Recall, the Employer may require an employee to complete a transition review period.

  • Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.

  • 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.

  • Asset Representations Review Process Section 3.01 Asset Representations Review Notices and Identification of Review Receivables. On receipt of an Asset Representations Review Notice from the Seller according to Section 5.7 of the Receivables Purchase Agreement, the Asset Representations Reviewer will start an Asset Representations Review. The Servicer will provide the list of Review Receivables to the Asset Representations Reviewer promptly upon receipt of the Asset Representations Review Notice. The Asset Representations Reviewer will not be obligated to start, and will not start, an Asset Representations Review until an Asset Representations Review Notice and the related list of Review Receivables is received. The Asset Representations Reviewer is not obligated to verify (i) whether the conditions to the initiation of the Asset Representations Review and the issuance of an Asset Representations Review Notice described in Section 7.6 of the Indenture were satisfied or (ii) the accuracy or completeness of the list of Review Receivables provided by the Servicer.

  • Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Business Review Meetings In order to maintain the relationship between the Department and the Contractor, each quarter the Department may request a business review meeting. The business review meeting may include, but is not limited to, the following: • Successful completion of deliverables • Review of the Contractor’s performance • Review of minimum required reports • Addressing of any elevated Customer issues • Review of continuous improvement ideas that may help lower total costs and improve business efficiencies.

  • 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.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!