Workload Review Process Sample Clauses

Workload Review Process. (a) Stage 1 - Manager Where an Employee or group of Employees is concerned they cannot meet their direct supervisor’s workload expectations and believe their workloads are excessive as per Article 54.01(c), the Employee or group of Employees may raise the concern to the Manager, equivalent position, or designate in writing. The Manager, equivalent position, or designate shall meet with the Employee or group of Employees within fourteen (14) days of the concern being raised to discuss and resolve the concern. The Manager shall provide a reply in writing. (b) Stage 2 - Director If the Manager and the Employee or group of Employees are unable to resolve the concern at Stage 1, the Union may submit the matter in writing to the appropriate Director, equivalent position, or designate within seven (7) days of receipt of the reply at Stage 1. If satisfied that the concern meets the definition of excessive in Article 54.01(c), the Director, equivalent position, or designate shall meet with the Employee or group of Employees within fourteen (14) days of the concern being raised to discuss and resolve the concern. The Director shall provide a reply in writing within fourteen (14) days of the Stage 2 meeting. (c) Stage 3 - Workload Review Committee (i) Each Department will establish at least one (1) Workload Review Committee. At the Deputy Minister’s discretion, additional Workload Review Committees may be established. Workload Review Committees shall be made up of two members: one (1) Employer representative, appointed by the Employer; and one (1) Union representative, appointed by the Union. (ii) If the Employee or group of Employees is not satisfied with the reply at Stage 2 the Union may, within seven (7) days of receipt of the reply, submit the workload concern in writing to the Office of the appropriate Deputy Minister, who shall assign the review to the appropriate Workload Review Committee. (iii) The Workload Review Committee shall meet and attempt to reach a consensus recommendation. In the event that the Committee is unable to reach consensus on all items, the Committee shall make a joint recommendation on the items on which consensus has been reached; each Committee member will make separate recommendations on any items where consensus was not reached, all to be provided to the Deputy Minister within thirty (30) days. (iv) The Deputy Minister, after considering the recommendations, shall make a final and binding decision regarding the workload concern, and ...
Sample 1Sample 2See All (4)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Workload Review Process. (a) Stage 1 – Manager Where an Employee or group of Employees is concerned they cannot meet workload expectations, they may raise the concern with their immediate out of scope supervisor or manager. The Manager shall meet with the Employee or group of Employees within fourteen (14) days of the concern being raised to discuss and resolve the concern. The Manager shall provide a timely reply in writing.
Sample 1
Workload Review Process. Where an employee covered by this Agreement has cause to believe that they are being asked to perform more work than is consistent with proper care, they must first give their immediate Supervisor or Designate an opportunity to resolve the issue by reassessing the needs of the team to determine whether realignment of work assignments is required. If the employee is dissatisfied with the resolution, they may:
Sample 1
Workload Review Process. Step 1 Where an employee, Manager or the Workload Committee identifies that workload is becoming unmanageable they may request a workload review by their immediate manager. Step 2 A meeting between manager and employee will be held within five (5) working days of the request or such period of time agreed upon by employee and manager. The purpose of the meeting is to develop a plan and address workload issues including agreed upon solutions. The solutions will be in writing and, if mutually agreed, will be signed by all parties with a copy to the Service Director and the Workload Committee. Step 3 If the issue is not resolved in Step 2, the Manager will refer the matter to the Service Director. The Service Director will set a meeting with the employee and the Manager. The employee has the right to have a Union Representative at that meeting, if possible from the Workload Committee. The Manager and Service Director will then either confirm the initial response or offer an alternative resolution.
Sample 1
Workload Review Process. An academic staff member who is dissatisfied with any aspect of their workload shall have recourse to a review process. The review process is designed to seek early resolution, without the need for escalation to a formal dispute process. The academic staff member and the supervisor, Head of School / Xxxx (or nominee) has the right to be represented by a person of their choice (other than a practising barrister or solicitor) and to seek the assistance of an employee from Human Resources. (a) Initially an academic staff member would raise his/her concern with their direct supervisor; (b) Where the academic staff member remains dissatisfied, he/she may raise their concern with the Head of School (or nominee), or with the relevant Xxxx / Director and request a review of their workload. (c) If following sub-clause (a) and (b) the concern remains unresolved, an academic staff member may use the dispute resolution procedure set out in Clause 69 of this Agreement, commencing with referral to the Executive Director, Human Resources.
Sample 1
Workload Review Process. Where an Employee or group of Employees are concerned their workloads are excessive, as defined in this letter of understanding, the Employee or group of Employees may raise the concern to the Manager, equivalent position, or designate in writing. The Manager, equivalent position, or designate shall meet with the Employee or group of Employees within ten (10) workdays of the concern being raised to discuss and resolve the concern. The Manager shall provide a response in writing. The time limits in the Workload Review Process may be adjusted by mutual agreement of the Parties. A representative of the Union may assist an Employee or group of Employees during the Workload Review Process. The Workload Review Process is not subject to the Grievance Procedure set out in Article 25. SIGNED THIS DAY OF _ , 2019. ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF ON BEHALF OF LOCAL 039 OF THE GOVERNORS OF THE SOUTHERN ALBERTA UNION OF PROVINCIAL ALBERTA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY EMLPOYEES Chair – Xxxxx Xxxx President – Xxx Xxxxx RE: Use of Agency Staff for Administrative Assistant I and II
Sample 1

Related to Workload Review Process

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

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

  • 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:

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

  • 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

  • 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;

  • AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the final audit report, CONSULTANT may request a review by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by ALAMEDA CTC will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT and subconsultants’ contracts, including cost proposals and ICRs, may be subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, an AGREEMENT Audit, an Incurred Cost Audit, an ICR Audit, or a certified public accountant (“CPA”) ICR Audit Workpaper Review. If selected for audit or review, the AGREEMENT, cost proposal and ICR and related workpapers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR Audit Workpaper Review it is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to ensure federal, state, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA’s workpapers including making copies as necessary. The AGREEMENT, cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by CONSULTANT and approved by ALAMEDA CTC to conform to the audit or review recommendations. CONSULTANT agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the contract by this reference if directed by ALAMEDA CTC at its sole discretion. Refusal by CONSULTANT to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, state, or local governments have access to CPA workpapers, will be considered a breach of contract terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.

  • Review Procedures a. In consultation with the Illinois SHPO, NRCS shall identify those undertakings with little to no potential to affect historic properties and list those undertakings in Appendix A. Upon the determination by the CRS that a proposed undertaking is included in Appendix A, the NRCS is not required to consult further with the SHPO for that undertaking. A list of undertakings with the potential to affect historic properties comprises Appendix B. b. The lists of undertakings provided in Appendices A and B may be modified through consultation and written agreement between the NRCS State Conservationist and the SHPO without requiring an amendment to this Illinois Prototype Agreement. The NRCS State Office will maintain the master list and will provide an updated list to all consulting parties with an explanation of the rationale for classifying the practices accordingly. c. Undertakings identified in Appendix B shall require further review as outlined in Stipulation V. a. The NRCS shall consult with the SHPO to define the undertaking’s APE, identify and evaluate historic properties that may be affected by the undertaking, assess potential effects, and identify strategies for resolving adverse effects prior to implementing the undertaking. 1) NRCS may provide its proposed APE, identification of historic properties and/or scope of identification efforts, and assessment of effects in a single transmittal to the SHPO, provided this documentation meets the substantive standards in 36 CFR Part 800.4-5 and 800.11. 2) The NRCS shall attempt to avoid adverse effects to historic properties whenever possible; where historic properties are located in the APE, NRCS shall describe how it proposes to modify, buffer, or move the undertaking to avoid adverse effects to historic properties. 3) Where the NRCS proposes a finding of "no historic properties affected" or "no adverse effect" to historic properties, the SHPO shall have 30 calendar days from receipt of this documented description and information to review it and provide comments. The NRCS shall take into account all timely comments. i. If the SHPO, or another consulting party, disagrees with NRCS' findings and/or determination, it shall notify the NRCS within the thirty (30) calendar daytime period. The NRCS shall consult with the SHPO or other consulting party to attempt to resolve the disagreement. If the disagreement cannot be resolved through this consultation, NRCS shall follow the dispute resolution process in Stipulation VIII below. ii. If the SHPO does not respond to the NRCS within the thirty (30) calendar day period and/or the NRCS receives no objections from other consulting parties, or if the SHPO concurs with the NRCS' determination and proposed actions to avoid adverse effects, the NRCS shall document the concurrence/lack of response within the review time noted above and may move forward with the undertaking. 4) Where a proposed undertaking may adversely affect historic properties, NRCS shall describe proposed measures to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects, and follow the process in 36 CFR Part 800.6, including consultation with other consulting patties and notification to the ACHP, to develop a Memorandum of Agreement to resolve the adverse effects. Should the proposed undertaking have the potential to adversely affect a known NHL, the NRCS shall, to the maximum extent possible, undertake such planning and actions that may be necessary to minimize harm to the NHL in accordance with 54 U.S.C. § 306107 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800.6 and 800.10, including consultation with the ACHP and respective National Park Service, Regional National Historic Landmark Program Coordinator, to develop a Memorandum of Agreement. d. NRCS will conduct archaeological surveys and will submit reports and other documentation to SHPO for review and comment. When no archaeological sites have been located by the archaeological survey, NRCS may proceed with the proposed undertaking. Reports for negative surveys must be submitted to SHPO on a quarterly basis. All positive and negative reports submitted to SHPO will be sent digitally for submission to the Inventory of Illinois Archaeological Sites (IAS) data file maintained by staff at the Illinois State Museum (ISM) housed under the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The NRCS further agrees that access to specific site location data will be restricted to the CRS, the NRCS field personnel installing conservation practices adjacent to the cultural resource, and the landowner. Specific site location information for individual projects will be maintained in a secure cultural resources file kept in the field offices and will not be available to the public. e. Curation: NRCS personnel will not collect artifactual material during routine field inspections. However, if a professional survey, evaluation testing, or mitigation is required, NRCS shall ensure that all materials and records resulting from cultural resources surveys or data recovery activities on federal or state property are curated by the Illinois State Museum. The NRCS shall ensure that all records resulting from cultural resource surveys or data recovery activities on private property are curated by the Illinois State Museum or an equivalent curation facility in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. Subject to the landowner's permission, all objects resulting from cultural resources surveys or data recovery activities are maintained by the Illinois State Museum or equivalent research institution until their analysis is complete and they are returned to their owner(s). Although landowners will be encouraged to donate artifactual material, it is understood that objects collected on private land remain the property of the landowner(s) unless the landowner(s) donates the material to the Illinois State Museum or equivalent research institution. This excludes burial goods, as stipulated by XXXXXX.

  • ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 11. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan.

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

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