Selection Review Sample Clauses

The Selection Review clause establishes a process for evaluating and approving choices made during a project or contractual engagement, such as the selection of materials, subcontractors, or design elements. Typically, this clause outlines the criteria, timelines, and responsible parties for reviewing and either accepting or rejecting proposed selections. Its core practical function is to ensure that all selections meet agreed-upon standards and requirements, thereby reducing the risk of disputes and ensuring project quality and compliance.
Selection Review. Employees bypassed for selection more senior to the employee selected shall be informed, in writing, of the reason(s) they were not selected by the person making the selection. They may appeal the determination to the Department of Human Resources at Step 3 of the grievance procedure for a determination as to the adequacy of the reason(s) for the bypassing. Said appeal must be filed within three (3) work days of notification of non-selection. Appointment to the position shall not occur until a determination by the Department of Human Resources has been made. For promotions to Local 2058 bargaining unit positions, the determination at the Department of Human Resources level shall be final. For promotions to Local 20 positions, appeal may proceed through the grievance procedure. If the appointment is overturned, the original appointee shall be reinstated to that former position with no loss of seniority.
View SourceView Similar (10)
Selection Review. Where a dispute arises out of the selection of an apprentice that cannot be resolved at the plant level, the matter will be discussed by Management and the Local Union.
View SourceView Similar (3)
Selection Review. Employees bypassed for selection more senior to the employee selected shall be informed, in writing, of the reason(s) they were not selected by the person making the selection. They may appeal the determination to the Department of Human Resources at Step 3 of the grievance procedure for a determination as to the adequacy of the reason(s) for the bypassing. Said appeal must be filed within three (3) work days of notification of non-selection. Appointment to the position shall not occur until a determination by the Department of Human Resources has been made. For promotions to Local 2058 bargaining unit positions, the determination at the Department of Human Resources level shall be final and may not be advanced beyond Step 3. For promotions to Local 7 positions, appeal may proceed through the grievance procedure. If the appointment is overturned, the original appointee shall be reinstated to that former position with no loss of seniority. f) Promotion Probationary Period An employee promoted to a higher classification who is found to be unsuited for the work of the new classification, or who desires to return to the former position during the four hundred eighty (480) actual work hour probationary period, shall be reinstated to that former position with no loss of unit seniority. If the employee's former position has been filled, the employee filling that position may be removed and reinstated to their former position, and so forth, with no loss of unit seniority. g) Training Credit/Career Pathing The City may develop training programs using either internal or external resources to enable employees to meet, in whole or in part, experience requirements for higher level Local 7 bargaining unit positions.
View SourceView Similar (3)
Selection Review. Should an employee feel that preference has not been given under the terms of this Article, the employee or the Job ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on their behalf will raise the matter in writing to the Manager, Human Resources within seven (7) calendar days of the date the employee received written notification of selection under 7.01 (g). Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of such referral, the Manager, Human Resources will review the selection and reply to the employee in writing.
View Source

Related to Selection Review

  • Utilization Review NOTE: The Utilization Review process does not apply to Services that are not covered by Blue Shield because of a coverage determination made by Medicare. State law requires that health plans disclose to Sub- scribers and health plan providers the process used to authorize or deny health care services under the plan. Blue Shield has completed documentation of this process ("Utilization Review"), as required un- der Section 1363.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. To request a copy of the document describing this Utilization Review process, call the Customer Service Department at the telephone number indicated on your Identification Card.

  • Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.

  • Position Review 18.3.1 Either an employee or the University may request an audit of the duties and responsibilities of a position he/she/it believes is not allocated to the proper class. Employees requesting such an audit are expected to notify the Union at the time of their request. 18.3.2 Job audits will be performed and reclassification decisions will be made by the University’s Human Resources Services staff according to the University’s Classification Process. The affected employee(s) and the Union will be notified of the outcome of a job audit in writing. In the event of a reallocation that results in removal of a position from the bargaining unit, the written notice will describe the manner in which the bargaining unit work is being distributed, including the classification and position(s) of any employee(s) absorbing work from the reallocated position. 18.3.3 If an employee disagrees with a classification decision made by the Human Resources staff, the employee may request review of that decision through the Director of OFM/State Human Resources within 30 (thirty) calendar days of receiving the final allocation decision from the University. Should the employee disagree with the Director’s decision, the employee may further appeal the matter to the Washington Personnel Resources Board within 30 (thirty) calendar days of being provided the written decision of the Director. The Board will render a decision, which will be final and binding. Decisions regarding appropriate classification will be reviewed in accordance with this Section and will not be subject to the grievance procedure specified in Article 40 of this Agreement.

  • 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.

  • 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