Review of Evaluation Sample Clauses

Review of Evaluation. If Agreement on the evaluation is not reached, the matter may be referred to the Superintendent by either party.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (7)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Review of Evaluation. The administrator and immediate supervisor shall meet and discuss the evaluation with the unit member prior to it being forwarded to the Personnel Office to be placed in the unit member’s permanent file. No unit member shall be required to sign an evaluation, nor shall the evaluation be placed in any personnel file, without such unit member first having an opportunity for discussion with the evaluator. Within then (10) working days of such discussion, the unit member shall have the right to respond to the evaluation in writing. Such response will be attached to the evaluation.
Sample 1Sample 2
Review of Evaluation. Employees who disagree with their evaluation may file a grievance at the Step 3 (Director's Step) of the grievance procedure. The Director's decision shall be final and binding on the employee and the union; therefore, evaluation grievances are not subject to the arbitration procedure of this contract. Employees whose written performance evaluations indicate that they are not performing at an acceptable level will not receive a pay increase. Employees will be re-evaluated after six months and if they are performing at an acceptable level, shall receive an increase in pay effective the date of the acceptable evaluation.
Sample 1Sample 2
Review of Evaluation. At the beginning of the school term, the building principal will review with the certified staff under his/her supervision, the certified staff evaluation procedures, standards and instruments.
Sample 1Sample 2
Review of Evaluation. The completed evaluation shall be shown to the employee for review and such employee shall affix his or her signature. Such signature shall not indicate agreement or disagreement with the contents of the evaluation. A copy will be furnished to the employee concerned.
Sample 1
Review of Evaluation. (1) When an evaluation is accomplished, the employee's performance shall be reviewed and discussed by the immediate supervisor with the employee he/she evaluates. The employee shall sign a copy of the evaluation as evidence that he/she has received a copy of the completed form. The employee's signature merely indicates an acknowledgement that the employee has received a copy of the evaluation; it does not indicate agreement with its contents. Refusal of the employee to sign the evaluation form shall constitute waiver of the employee's right to a review of the performance evaluation by the Agency. The employee may submit a rebuttal in writing which shall be attached to the evaluation in the personnel file. (2) An employee may seek review or modification of the evaluation with the reviewer and may appeal the reviewer's decision with the Superintendent or his designee. The employee must request the review within thirty (30) calendar days following the date he/she signed the evaluation or the date the appropriate administrator signed the evaluation-- whichever comes later. (3) If an evaluation is appealed to an arbitrator, the arbitrator shall not alter or expunge a performance evaluation unless the employee establishes by a preponderance of the evidence: (a) that the rater, evaluator, or appointing authority abused his or her discretion, producing an inaccurate, unfair, or prejudicial evaluation, or (b) that the employing agency failed to substantially comply with these rules or the agency's internal procedures in completing or reviewing the performance evaluation.
Sample 1
Review of Evaluation. 2 The formal evaluation summary made pursuant to this Article shall be reduced to writing 3 and a copy shall be made available to the evaluatee. The evaluation shall be reviewed 4 with the evaluatee by the evaluating supervisor during the evaluatee's work shift. If any 5 part of the evaluation indicates a need for improvement, specific suggestions for 6 improvement shall be made by the evaluating supervisor. 7 The evaluatee shall sign the copy of the evaluation. Such signature shall not necessarily 8 mean concurrence with the evaluation but will only indicate that the evaluatee has 9 received the report and is aware of the content. The unit member may challenge the 10 substance of an evaluation by means of the grievance procedure, except that any decision 11 rendered at Level IV of the grievance procedure shall be final and binding.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Review of Evaluation

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • PROGRESS EVALUATION Engineer shall, from time to time during the progress of the Engineering Services, confer with County at County’s election. Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary, or as may be reasonably requested by County, in order for County to evaluate features of the Engineering Services. At the request of County or Engineer, conferences shall be provided at Engineer's office, the offices of County, or at other locations designated by County. When requested by County, such conferences shall also include evaluation of the Engineering Services. County may, from time to time, require Engineer to appear and provide information to the Williamson County Commissioners Court. Should County determine that the progress in Engineering Services does not satisfy an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, then County shall review same with Engineer to determine corrective action required. Engineer shall promptly advise County in writing of events which have or may have a significant impact upon the progress of the Engineering Services, including but not limited to the following: A. Problems, delays, adverse conditions which may materially affect the ability to meet the objectives of an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, or preclude the attainment of Project Engineering Services units by established time periods; and such disclosure shall be accompanied by statement of actions taken or contemplated, and County assistance needed to resolve the situation, if any; and B. Favorable developments or events which enable meeting goals sooner than anticipated in relation to an applicable Work Authorization’s or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto.

  • 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.

  • Annual Evaluation The Partnership will be evaluated on an annual basis through the use of the Strategic Partnership Annual Evaluation Format as specified in Appendix C of OSHA Instruction CSP 00-00-000, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. The Choate Team will be responsible for gathering required participant data to evaluate and track the overall results and success of the Partnership. This data will be shared with OSHA. OSHA will be responsible for writing and submitting the annual evaluation.

  • MANAGEMENT OF EVALUATION OUTCOMES 12.1 Where the Employer is, any time during the Employee’s employment, not satisfied with the Employee’s performance with respect to any matter dealt with in this Agreement, the Employer will give notice to the Employee to attend a meeting; 12.2 The Employee will have the opportunity at the meeting to satisfy the Employer of the measures being taken to ensure that his performance becomes satisfactory and any programme, including any dates, for implementing these measures; 12.3 Where there is a dispute or difference as to the performance of the Employee under this Agreement, the Parties will confer with a view to resolving the dispute or difference; and 12.4 In the case of unacceptable performance, the Employer shall – 12.4.1 Provide systematic remedial or developmental support to assist the Employee to improve his performance; and 12.4.2 After appropriate performance counselling and having provided the necessary guidance and/or support as well as reasonable time for improvement in performance, the Employer may consider steps to terminate the contract of employment of the Employee on grounds of unfitness or incapacity to carry out his or her duties.

  • EMPLOYEE EVALUATION A. Formal evaluation of employees shall be in writing and shall be for the purpose of establishing a record of the employee’s work performance. The evaluation may include but is not limited to: establishing performance standards and outcome measures, recognition of an employee’s efforts, as well as planning for improvement. Issues of attendance and punctuality may be addressed if they have previously been discussed with the employee. The employee’s job description shall be a basis for the evaluation. B. The evaluator shall review the written evaluation with the employee and provide the employee with a copy. The employee shall sign the evaluation acknowledging receipt. If the employee has objections to the evaluation, s/he, may within twenty (20) working days following receipt of the evaluation put such objections in writing and have them attached to the evaluation report and placed in his/her personnel file. C. The frequency of evaluations shall be determined by the District and generally occur every other year by April 1st for bargaining unit employees. If the District chooses to do so, it may conduct formal evaluations on an annual basis. An employee may request to receive one (1) annual evaluation. Such request shall be in writing to the employee’s supervisor with a copy to the Human Resources Department. D. The Human Resources Department will consult with the Federation in developing an outline of best practices to be used in conducting employee evaluations. E. When the District determines that an employee’s work performance is unsatisfactory, it shall inform the employee in writing of any deficiency and the improvement expected and provide the employee with the opportunity to correct the unsatisfactory performance within a reasonable time period established by the District. F. The judgment of an employee’s work performance by an evaluating supervisor shall not be the subject of a grievance. A grievance concerning an evaluation shall be limited to an allegation that the evaluation was done in bad faith or clearly untrue. The burden of proof shall rest with the grievant. Such grievance shall be filed at the next administrative level above that of the evaluator and that administrator shall provide a written decision within ten (10) working days of any hearing. If the grievance is not resolved, it may be appealed by submitting a written statement to the Human Resources Department within ten (10) working days following receipt of the administrative written decision. The written statement must clearly set forth why the previous decision is in error regarding the allegation of bad faith or being clearly untrue. The Director of Labor Relations, or designee, may review the record of the grievance and/or conduct a hearing and shall issue a written decision within ten (10) working days following such review or hearing. Such decision shall be final. G. Effective July 1, 2013, Sign Language Interpreters will be evaluated using the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) pursuant to OAR 581-015-2035 and/or the District’s evaluation form.

  • 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.

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