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 (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
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
Sample 1Sample 2
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. 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
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; 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. I. Initial Assessment: 9-12 new investigations per month (16 maximum) II. Ongoing: 17- 21 (Codes 1-5 and 10 of the Eligibility Spectrum) III. Generic Protection Workers: 14-19 IV. FNMI Generic Protection Workers: 13-17 V. Children-in-Care: 18-22 VI. Kinship: 18-22 VII. Xxxxxx Care Resource: 25-30 VIII. Adoption: 28-32
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. 2. Each Party shall seek to enhance the acceptance of the results of conformity assessment procedures conducted in the territories of other Parties with a view to increasing efficiency, avoiding duplication and ensuring cost effectiveness of the conformity assessments. In this regard, each Party may choose, depending on the situation of the Party and the specific sectors involved, a broad range of approaches. These may include but are not limited to: (a) recognition by a Party of the results of conformity assessments performed in the territory of another Party; (b) recognition of co-operative arrangements between accreditation bodies in the territories of the Parties; (c) mutual recognition of conformity assessment procedures conducted by bodies located in the territory of each Party; (d) accreditation of conformity assessment bodies in the territory of another Party; (e) use of existing regional and international multilateral recognition agreements and arrangements; (f) designating conformity assessment bodies located in the territory of another Party to perform conformity assessment; and (g) suppliers’ declaration of conformity. 3. Each Party shall exchange information with other Parties on its experience in the development and application of the approaches in Paragraph 2(a) to (g) and other appropriate approaches with a view to facilitating the acceptance of the results of conformity assessment procedures. 4. A Party shall, upon request of another Party, explain its reasons for not accepting the results of any conformity assessment procedure performed in the territory of that other Party.

  • 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.

  • Joint Assessment If the Premises are not separately assessed, Lessee's liability shall be an equitable proportion of the Real Property Taxes for all of the land and improvements included within the tax parcel assessed, such proportion to be conclusively determined by Lessor from the respective valuations assigned in the assessor's work sheets or such other information as may be reasonably available.

  • 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: (1) a requirement that the HSP develop and implement an improvement plan that is acceptable to the LHIN; (2) the conduct of a Review; (3) a revision and amendment of the HSP’s obligations; and (4) an in-year, or year end, adjustment to the Funding, among other possible means of responding to the Performance Factor or improving performance. (b) Any performance improvement process begun under a prior service accountability agreement that was not completed under the prior agreement will continue under this Agreement. Any performance improvement required by a LHIN under a prior service accountability agreement will be deemed to be a requirement of this Agreement until fulfilled or waived by the LHIN.

  • 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). 6.3.2 Teachers shall use their professional judgment to determine which assessment and/or evaluation tool(s) from the Board list of preapproved assessment tools is applicable, for which student(s), as well as the frequency and timing of the tool. In order to inform their instruction, teachers must utilize diagnostic assessment during the school year.

  • Escalation Process If Customer believes in good faith that Customer has not received quality or timely assistance in response to a support request or that Customer urgently need to communicate important support related business issues to Service Provider’s management, Customer may escalate the support request by contacting Service Provider and requesting that the support request be escalated to work with Customer to develop an action plan.

  • Problem Statement School bus fleets are aging, and our communities have poor air quality. Replacing school buses with zero emission school buses will address both of these issues.

  • Payment Process Subject to the terms and conditions established by the Agreement, the pricing per deliverable established by the Grant Work Plan, and the billing procedures established by Department, Department agrees to pay Grantee for services rendered in accordance with Section 215.422, Florida Statutes (F.S.).

  • Periodic Risk Assessment Provider further acknowledges and agrees to conduct periodic risk assessments and remediate any identified security and privacy vulnerabilities in a timely manner.

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