Work Allocation Review Process Sample Clauses

Work Allocation Review Process. Where an employee believes that the work allocation relating to his/her role is unreasonable, the following process should be applied to seek to resolve such concerns. 14.5.1 In the first instance, an employee(s) should raise any concerns regarding work allocation with their supervisor. Options and strategies to vary work allocation can be discussed and where agreed implemented and monitored. 14.5.2 If following efforts to resolve concerns as outlined above, the employee still has concerns about their work allocation, they or the union acting on their behalf, may seek a review of their work allocation. 14.5.3 The employee and/or their nominated representative will, in this case raise the concerns regarding work allocation with the supervisor’s direct line manager, specifying steps already undertaken with the supervisor and explaining what concerns still remain. The Manager will review the concerns, consulting with all parties and having regard to the factors specified in subclauses 14.1 to 14.4 of this Agreement. The Manager will make a determination and advise all parties of the decision. 14.5.4 Should the employee and/or their nominated representative not believe that the matter has been satisfactorily dealt with, they can raise the matter with the Head of Element specifying steps undertaken to date to resolve the matter and specifying what concerns still remain. The Head of Element will review the concerns, consulting with all parties and again having regard to the factors specified in subclauses 14.1 to 14.4 of this Agreement. The Head of Element will make a determination and advise all parties of the decision. 14.5.5 Should the employee and/or their nominated representative still not believe that the concern has been satisfactorily dealt with it can be pursued using the University’s individual grievance resolution procedure. This procedure would be entered at Level 3. 14.5.6 Unions may raise work allocation concerns in a particular element through the Professional and Support Staff Consultative Committee and request an investigation be undertaken. Where this is agreed to be appropriate, such an investigation will be undertaken with the outcomes reported back to the PSSCC.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Work Allocation Review Process. Where an employee believes that the work allocation relating to their role is unreasonable, the following process should be applied to seek to resolve such concerns.
Sample 1

Related to Work Allocation Review Process

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

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

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

  • Claims Review Methodology ‌‌ a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject‌‌ to the Quarterly Claims Review.

  • Review Procedure If the Plan Administrator denies part or all of the claim, the claimant shall have the opportunity for a full and fair review by the Plan Administrator of the denial, as follows:

  • 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.

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

  • REVIEW OF WORK The Consultant shall permit the City, its agents and/or employees to review, at any time, all work performed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement at any stage of the work;

  • Alternate Work Schedule An alternate work schedule is any work schedule where an employee is regularly scheduled to work five (5) days per week, but the employee’s regularly scheduled two (2) days off are NOT Saturday and Sunday.

  • 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

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