The Evaluation Sample Clauses

The Evaluation. Review Committee shall produce a decision to uphold or modify the prime evaluator's directions for professional improvement. The decision shall be binding upon both the prime evaluator and the evaluatee.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (6)
The Evaluation. At the end of your placement it is important for you to hear what your supervisor thinks of your performance. It is also interesting for the company to hear your opinion about their business. Even an established business can learn from something that you might have noticed. Thus, the evaluation is divided into three parts: • You offer your opinion about your placement company. • You give your opinion about your own job performance. • Your placement supervisor gives an opinion on your performance. Prepare Task A first before having the final discussion with your placement supervisor. You can take this data with you to this concluding meeting. During the meeting itself you will be working on Task B. What is your opinion about the company? (Put an “X” after the appropriate answer) The first time I went to my placement company I knew where I needed to report to. Yes No The building where my placement was located is: Really nice Average Poor My work area was: Really nice Average Poor The tools and materials with which I had to work were: Modern Customary Out-dated The underlying atmosphere in my work area was: Really good Good Mediocre Poor The people surrounding me found in their work: Much pleasure No pleasure These things appealed to me about the place where I worked: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… I did not care for the following regarding the place where I worked: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… I would /would not want to work for this company because: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Give your opinion about your own job performance. (Place an “X” after the appropriate answer) I did the work that was assigned to me: Really well Reasonably well In a mediocre manner I showed a great deal of initiative in my work: Often Occasionally Rarely I did my work: With much pleasure With some pleasure With little pleasure I was: Always on time Sometimes too late Often too late I think that I: Fit in well with the company from the very beginning Increasingly began to fit in with the company during the placement. Did not fit in well with this company. I could get along with my colleagues: Really well Reasonably well Not very well I could get along with management personnel: Really well Reasonabl...
Sample 1Sample 2
The Evaluation. 10.1 The Evaluator shall provide the Evaluation to the parties in writing within ten (10) working days of whichever event is the latter of: (a) Receipt of the final submissions of case or other documents or evidentiary material of the parties; or, (b) The Evaluation Conference; or, (c) Receipt by the Evaluator of any further submissions, information, documents or evidentiary material requested by the Evaluator of any party following the Evaluation Conference. 10.2 The Evaluation shall be made in writing and shall state the reasons upon which it is based unless the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given. 10.3 The Evaluation shall record the Evaluator’s opinion as to the likely incidence of liability, and where appropriate, a range of damages if the dispute were to be resolved by a court based on the material put forward by the parties in the course of the Early Neutral Evaluation. 10.4 The parties agree that the Evaluation will not be binding on the parties.
Sample 1Sample 2
The Evaluation. The written evaluation shall be discussed in detail with each individual employee. The employee shall have the right to include a written statement or addenda to the evaluation.
Sample 1Sample 2
The Evaluation. Peer Committee is a committee consisting of three Faculty Members elected by the Faculty Association as required by Article 12.
Sample 1
The Evaluation. The main task of the evaluation was to analyse and assess the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency, as well as the EU-added value, of the Preparatory Actions and special events that were carried out during 2009 and 2010, the first two years of Preparatory Action funding.1 The evaluation collected data and information through a mix of primary and secondary sources, with a heavy emphasis on the former. The main data collection methods were: • A survey of coordinators and partners for the transnational projects funded in 2009; • A survey of coordinators for the transnational projects funded in 2010; 1 Due to the timing of the evaluation, the 2011 activities are not taken into account here. Moreover, the majority of data collected refers to projects funded in 2009, which were complete in time for the data collection phase of the evaluation. • Case studies of seven 2009 transnational projects, one conference and three non- commercial sport events. The case studies included interviews with the project coordinators / event organisers and partners, and detailed analyses of available outputs, reporting and other documentation; • Desk research, including analyses of relevant policy documents, programme information and budgetary data.
Sample 1
The Evaluation. The Evaluation will seek to establish that the implementation of the Assessment Statement is being followed and specifically that the following criteria are being fulfilled: • That the standards of any relevant accreditation system for academic programs and/or examinations are substantially equivalent to systems operated under the relevant Agreement; • The process by which substantial equivalence of qualifications is determined is robust and conforms to good practice in the Agreement; • That the policies and procedures used are well documented, subject to regular review and updating, and accurately presented in the Assessment Statement. • That the processes by which engineers are registered domestically are robust and in accordance with the Assessment Statement and the description provided to the Review Team by the Authorized Member and that the competence standard required for registration is substantially equivalent to that of the Agreement (exemplified by the competence profiles approved by the Authorized Members); • That the processes by which individuals are registered on the jurisdictional section of the relevant international register are robust and in accordance with the Assessment Statement; • That the standard of professional judgement demonstrated through acceptance or rejection of applications is satisfactory, including the judgement regarding demonstration of sufficient and satisfactory evidence of current competence; Cross checks of the standards and system in operation might be: • Is the educational standard equivalent to the relevant Accord? For non-Accord jurisdictions this will require an in depth evaluation of educational standards and accreditation processes with a rigour similar to that required for Accord membership. The Accord review procedures should be used as guideline in undertaking this evaluation which may result in a two stage process i.e. an evaluation of the substantial equivalence of the educational standards followed by an evaluation of the substantial equivalence of the competence assessment system. • Is the standard of competence required in practice in accordance with the relevant exemplar competence profile? • Are the candidate competence assessment procedures well established and practiced? • Is the evaluation of continuing professional development sufficiently robust? • Does the system demonstrate consistency of standards, operation and decisions including, as appropriate, formal moderation? • Ultimately, as an overa...
Sample 1
The Evaluation. The evaluation may include but shall not be limited to formal observation, informal observation, differentiated supervision model, and submission of artifacts and evidence. For purposes of clarification, an observation is not considered an evaluation, but may be used to inform the evaluation.
Sample 1

Related to The Evaluation

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.