- Psychological Evaluations; Reasonable Basis; Appeals Sample Clauses

- Psychological Evaluations; Reasonable Basis; Appeals. In accordance with the holding of the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Hill v. City of Winona, an employee may challenge the basis upon which the Chief or Assistant Chief relied in making the referral for the psychological evaluation before the employee shall be required to submit to a psychological fitness for duty evaluation pursuant to Section 23.02 (a). Such a dispute shall not be subject to the grievance procedures set forth in Article 5 of this Agreement, but instead shall be resolved by the procedure set forth herein. The dispute shall be referred to an appeal committee consisting of the President of the Union plus two persons designated by him/her and the Chief of the Department and two persons designated by him/her. The Committee shall review all the information available to the Chief regarding the referral for the evaluation for the purpose of determining whether the factual basis for the referral is accurate and whether the referral is necessary. The Committee may seek additional information or refer the matter back to the Chief for further investigation. The Committee shall have the authority to make a final determination regarding the underlying facts upon which the referral was based and regarding whether the referral is necessary. Decisions of the Committee shall be by consensus. The Committee may seek outside assistance in the event it is having difficulty reaching a consensus. If a consensus cannot be reached on the issue of the underlying facts, the decision of the Union President, after seeking and considering input from the Committee members, shall be final and binding. If a consensus cannot be reached on the issue of whether the fitness for duty exam is necessary, the decision of the Fire Chief, after seeking and considering input from the Committee members, shall be final and binding.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (7)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
- Psychological Evaluations; Reasonable Basis; Appeals. No psychological evaluations shall be required in the absence of a recommendation by the MPRB's examining physician or other licensed medical provider who has a reasonable basis for requiring the psychological evaluation. The MPRB shall inform the employee of such reasonable basis at the time he/she is ordered to report for the required psychological examination unless the examining physician or other licensed medical provider documents with reasonable specificity that disclosure of the information in the report is likely to cause harm to the employee or to others. In such cases, the information shall be handled and/or disclosed in a manner consistent with prevailing medical and/or legal authority. If the employee disagrees that a reasonable basis exists for the required psychological evaluation, the employee may file a grievance contesting the requirement that he/she submit to the examination. In such event, the employee shall not be required to report for the psychological evaluation until the grievance has been resolved under the expedited arbitration procedures of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The MPRB may relieve the employee from duty without pay or reassign the employee to other duties during the pendency of the grievance resolution proceedings but shall not discipline or discharge the employee for refusing to submit to the psychological evaluation unless the employee refuses to undergo psychological evaluation after an arbitrator has determined, or the MPRB and the Federation agree, that a reasonable basis for the requirement exists. If an employee is relieved without pay, he/she may use available benefits in order to continue in paid status. If an employee is relieved without pay and it is subsequently determined that the MPRB lacked a reasonable basis to require a psychological evaluation, the MPRB shall make the employee whole by paying the employee for lost work days and/or restoring his/her benefit banks.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (6)
- Psychological Evaluations; Reasonable Basis; Appeals. In accordance with the holding of the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Hill v. City of Winona, an employee may challenge the basis upon which the Chief or Assistant Chief relied in making the referral for the psychological evaluation before the employee shall be required to submit to a psychological fitness for duty evaluation pursuant to Section 24.02(a). Such a dispute shall not be subject to the grievance procedures set forth in Article 5 of this Agreement, but instead shall be resolved by the procedure set forth herein. The dispute shall be referred to an appeal committee consisting of the President of the Union plus two designees and the Chief of the Department plus two designees. The Committee shall review all the information available to the Chief regarding the referral for the evaluation for the purpose of determining whether the factual basis for the referral is accurate and whether the referral is necessary. The Committee may seek additional information or refer the matter back to the Chief for further investigation. The Committee shall have the authority to make a final determination regarding the underlying facts upon which the referral was based and regarding whether the referral is necessary. Decisions of the Committee shall be by consensus. The Committee may seek outside assistance in the event it is having difficulty reaching a consensus. If a consensus cannot be reached on the issue of the underlying facts, the decision of the Union President, after seeking and considering input from the Committee members, shall be final and binding. If a consensus cannot be reached on the issue of whether the fitness for duty exam is necessary, the decision of the Fire Chief, after seeking and considering input from the Committee members, shall be final and binding.
Sample 1Sample 2

Related to - Psychological Evaluations; Reasonable Basis; Appeals

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order. (b) The technical evaluation committee may call the responsive bidders for discussion or presentation to facilitate and assess their understanding of the scope of work and its execution. However, the committee shall have sole discretion to call for discussion / presentation. (c) Financial bids of only those bidders who qualify the technical criteria will be opened provided all other requirements are fulfilled. (d) AIIMS Jodhpur shall have right to accept or reject any or all tenders without assigning any reasons thereof.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • Reasonable Suspicion Testing All Employees Performing Safety-Sensitive Functions A. Reasonable suspicion testing for alcohol or controlled substances may be directed by the Employer for any employee performing safety-sensitive functions when there is reason to suspect that alcohol or controlled substance use may be adversely affecting the employee’s job performance or that the employee may present a danger to the physical safety of the employee or another. B. Specific objective grounds must be stated in writing that support the reasonable suspicion. Examples of specific objective grounds include but are not limited to: 1. Physical symptoms consistent with alcohol and/or controlled substance use; 2. Evidence or observation of alcohol or controlled substance use, possession, sale, or delivery; or 3. The occurrence of an accident(s) where a trained manager, supervisor or lead worker suspects alcohol or other controlled substance use may have been a factor.

  • Statistical, Demographic or Market-Related Data All statistical, demographic or market-related data included in the Registration Statement, the Disclosure Package or the Prospectus are based on or derived from sources that the Company believes to be reliable and accurate and all such data included in the Registration Statement, the Disclosure Package or the Prospectus accurately reflects the materials upon which it is based or from which it was derived.

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.

  • Final Evaluation IC must submit a final report and a project evaluation to the Arts Commission within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Services. Any and all unexpended funds from IC must be returned to City no later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the Services.

  • Inability to Determine Rates If the Required Lenders determine that for any reason in connection with any request for a Eurodollar Rate Loan or a conversion to or continuation thereof that (a) Dollar deposits are not being offered to banks in the London interbank eurodollar market for the applicable amount and Interest Period of such Eurodollar Rate Loan, (b) adequate and reasonable means do not exist for determining the Eurodollar Rate for any requested Interest Period with respect to a proposed Eurodollar Rate Loan, or (c) the Eurodollar Rate for any requested Interest Period with respect to a proposed Eurodollar Rate Loan does not adequately and fairly reflect the cost to such Lenders of funding such Loan, the Administrative Agent will promptly so notify the Borrower and each Lender. Thereafter, the obligation of the Lenders to make or maintain Eurodollar Rate Loans shall be suspended until the Administrative Agent (upon the instruction of the Required Lenders) revokes such notice. Upon receipt of such notice, the Borrower may revoke any pending request for a Borrowing of, conversion to or continuation of Eurodollar Rate Loans or, failing that, will be deemed to have converted such request into a request for a Borrowing of Base Rate Loans in the amount specified therein.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • Job Evaluation The work of the provincial job evaluation steering committee (the JE Committee) will continue during the term of this Framework Agreement. The objectives of the JE Committee are as follows: • Review the results of the phase one and phase two pilots and outcomes of the committee work. Address any anomalies identified with the JE tool, process, or benchmarks. • Rate the provincial benchmarks and create a job hierarchy for the provincial benchmarks. • Gather data from all school districts and match existing job descriptions to the provincial benchmarks. • Identify the job hierarchy for local job descriptions for all school districts. • Compare the local job hierarchy to the benchmark-matched hierarchy. • Develop a methodology to convert points to pay bands - The confirmed method must be supported by current compensation best practices. • Identify training requirements to support implementation of the JE plan and develop training resources as required. Once the objectives outlined above are completed, the JE Committee will mutually determine whether a local, regional or provincial approach to the steps outlined above is appropriate. It is recognized that the work of the committee is technical, complicated, lengthy and onerous. To accomplish the objectives, the parties agree that existing JE funds can be accessed by the JE committee to engage consultant(s) to complete this work. It is further recognized that this process does not impact the established management right of employers to determine local job requirements and job descriptions nor does this process alter any existing collective agreement rights or established practices. When the JE plan is ready to be implemented, and if an amendment to an existing collective agreement is required, the JE Committee will work with the local School District and Local Union to make recommendations for implementation. Any recommendations will also be provided to the Provincial Labour Management Committee (PLMC). As mutually agreed by the provincial parties and the JE Committee, the disbursement of available JE funds shall be retroactive to January 2, 2020. The committee will utilize available funds to provide 50% of the wage differential for the position falling the furthest below the wage rate established by the provincial JE process and will continue this process until all JE fund monies at the time have been disbursed. The committee will follow compensation best practices to avoid problems such as inversion. The committee will report out to the provincial parties regularly during the term of the Framework Agreement. Should any concerns arise during the work of the committee they will be referred to the PLMC. Create a maintenance program to support ongoing implementation of the JE plan at a local, regional or provincial level. The maintenance program will include a process for addressing the wage rates of incumbents in positions which are impacted by implementation of the JE plan. The provincial parties confirm that $4,419,859 of ongoing annual funds will be used to implement the Job Evaluation Plan. Effective July 1, 2022, there will be a one-time pause of the annual $4,419,859 JE funding. This amount has been allocated to the local table bargaining money. The annual funding will recommence July 1, 2023.

  • Statistical or Market-Related Data Any statistical, industry-related and market-related data included or incorporated by reference in the Time of Sale Disclosure Package, are based on or derived from sources that the Company reasonably and in good faith believes to be reliable and accurate, and such data agree with the sources from which they are derived.

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