Workload Assessment Process Sample Clauses

Workload Assessment Process. An employee’s supervisor will conduct a workload review within three (3) working days when an individual worker reaches within two
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Workload Assessment Process. An employee’s supervisor will conduct a workload review within three (3) working days when an individual worker reaches within two (2) cases/homes/files of the cap or if a worker indicates that his/her workload is unreasonable. Workload reviews shall include the following:  Identifying the factors contributing to the workload issues, including but not limited to those factors listed above;  Identifying steps and initiating action to reduce the current and future identified workload pressures;  The supervisor will schedule a meeting for the supervisor and the employee to discuss these matters. The employee may bring a Union Representative, if available, to such meeting. It is understood that the Union Representative will not take an active part in the discussion. Any proposed actions will be put in writing within five (5) working days of the meeting;  If the employee is not satisfied that the workload issues have been resolved, the supervisor will refer the matter to the appropriate Director. The Director will provide a written response to both the supervisor and the employee within five (5) working days.  The Director will also forward a non identifying summary of this review to the Joint Workload Committee. This summary will include the employee’s job title, location, main reason for the workload assessment request and the Director’s response to such request. The Employer shall, on a monthly basis, forward to the Union a list of all bargaining unit case carrying employees and the total number of cases assigned, including a breakdown of the number of children’s files and family files.
Sample 1Sample 2
Workload Assessment Process. An employee’s supervisor will conduct a workload review within three (3) working days when an individual worker reaches within two (2) cases/homes/files of the cap or if a worker indicates that his/her workload is unreasonable. Workload reviews shall include the following:  Identifying the factors contributing to the workload issues, including but not limited to those factors listed above;  Identifying steps and initiating action to reduce the current and future identified workload pressures;  The supervisor will meet with the employee. Any proposed actions will be put in writing;  If the employee is not satisfied that the workload issues have been resolved, the supervisor will refer the matter to the appropriate Director. The Director will provide a written response to both the supervisor and the employee within five (5) working days.  The Director will also forward a non identifying summary of this review to the Joint Workload Committee. This summary will include the employee’s job title, location, main reason for the workload assessment request and the Director’s response to such request. The Employer shall, on a monthly basis, forward to the Union a list of all bargaining unit case carrying employees and the total number of cases assigned, including a breakdown of the number of children’s files and family files.
Sample 1
Workload Assessment Process. The goals regarding caseload based on workload ranges indicate the ideal average range of active cases that may be carried by a worker as specified below. The Employer will endeavour to distribute cases such that, on average over a rolling 3-month period, the workload ranges below are not exceeded by an employee. The ranges below reflect active case numbers. “Active cases” are those that require ongoing casework and where a supervisory consultation to close the file has not occurred.
Sample 1
Workload Assessment Process. The Manager shall conduct an assessment of the individual worker’s workload to determine whether the individual’s workload is likely to exceed reasonable levels. This may include a consideration of exceptional workload incurred through temporary coverage of another worker’s workload and the ability to complete caseload tasks in compliance with Ministry Standards and Guidelines and Agency Standards within the normal work week, as outlined in Article 14 of the Collective Agreement. If the Manager concludes that the individual worker’s workload is likely to exceed reasonable levels, the Manager shall initiate the necessary steps to explore alternatives towards resolving the individual worker’s workload. Individual Worker Workload Assessment Process: Where an individual worker has grounds to claim that the individual workload level has increased to an unreasonable level, the individual worker may request an assessment of his/her workload level through the following process:
Sample 1

Related to Workload Assessment Process

  • Conformity Assessment Procedures 1. Each Party shall give positive consideration to accepting the results of conformity assessment procedures of other Parties, even where those procedures differ from its own, provided it is satisfied that those procedures offer an assurance of conformity with applicable technical regulations or standards equivalent to its own procedures.

  • Performance Improvement Process 9.5.1 The purpose of the Performance Improvement Process is to remedy or mitigate the impact of a Performance Factor. The Performance Improvement Process may include: a requirement that the Hospital develop an Improvement Plan; or an amendment of the Hospital’s obligations as mutually agreed by the parties.

  • Impact Assessment If Service Provider desires to make any change, upgrade, replacement or addition that may have an adverse impact or require changes as described in Section 9.6(c) or increase the risk of Service Provider not being able to provide the Services in accordance with this Agreement or violate or be inconsistent with DIR Standards or Strategic Plans, then Service Provider shall prepare a written risk assessment and mitigation plan (1) describing in detail the nature and extent of such adverse impact or risk, (2) describing any benefits, savings or risks to DIR or the DIR Customers associated with such change, and (3) proposing strategies to mitigate any adverse risks or impacts associated with such change and, after consultation and agreement with DIR, implement the plan.

  • Project Completion Report At the completion of construction and once a Project is placed in service, the Subrecipient must submit a Project Completion Report that includes the total number of units built and leased, affordable units built and leased, DR-MHP units built and leased, an accomplishment narrative, and the tenants names, demographics and income for each DR-MHP unit.

  • Risk Assessment An assessment of any risks inherent in the work requirements and actions to mitigate these risks.

  • Conformity Assessment 1. The Parties recognize that a broad range of mechanisms exists to facilitate the acceptance of conformity assessment procedures and results thereby, including:

  • Project Reports; Completion Report 1. The Recipient shall monitor and evaluate the progress of the Project and prepare Project Reports in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.06 of the Standard Conditions and on the basis of indicators agreed with the World Bank. Each Project Report shall cover the period of one (1) calendar semester, and shall be furnished to the World Bank not later than one (1) month after the end of the period covered by such report.

  • The Performance Improvement Process (a) The Performance Improvement Process will focus on the risks of non- performance and problem-solving. It may include one or more of the following actions:

  • Diagnostic Assessment 6.3.1 Boards shall provide a list of pre-approved assessment tools consistent with their Board improvement plan for student achievement and which is compliant with Ministry of Education PPM (PPM 155: Diagnostic Assessment in Support of Student Learning, date of issue January 7, 2013).

  • ASSESSMENT REPORT Within 120 days following the general election held on November 2nd 2003, the returning officer of the munici- pality shall forward, in accordance with section 659.3 of the Act respecting elections and referendums in munici- palities (R.S.Q., c. E-2.2), an assessment report to the Chief Electoral Officer and the Minister setting out relevant ways to improve the trial and addressing, in particular, the following points : — the preparations for the election (choice of the new method of voting, communications plan, etc.) ; — the conduct of the advance poll and the poll ; — the cost of using the electronic voting system : – the cost of adapting election procedures ; – non-recurrent costs likely to be amortized ; – a comparison between the actual polling costs and the estimated polling costs using the new methods of voting and the projected cost of holding the general election on November 2nd 2003 using traditional methods ; — the number and duration of incidents during which voting was stopped, if any ; — the advantages and disadvantages of using the new method of voting ; — the results obtained during the addition of the votes and the correspondence between the number of ballot paper cards issued to the deputy returning officers and the number of ballot paper cards returned used and unused ; — the examination of rejected ballot papers, if it has been completed.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.