Arbitrator's Recommendations Sample Clauses

Arbitrator's Recommendations. The recommendations of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on all Parties, but in no event shall they have the power to alter, modify or amend this Agreement in any respect.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Arbitrator's Recommendations. The recommendations of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on grievances processed as a violation, misinterpretation or inequitable application of any of the provisions of the Agreement per Article VI, A (1) and shall be only advisory for all grievances processed per Article VI, A (2) except as otherwise required by law.

Related to Arbitrator's Recommendations

  • Manufacturer's Recommendations All work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements. The Contractor shall obtain the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements, for its use at the Site in executing the Work, copies of bulletins, circulars, catalogues, or other publications bearing the manufacturer’s titles, numbers, editions, dates, etc. If the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements are not available, the Contractor shall request installation instructions from the Design Professional.

  • Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:

  • Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users?  Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain.  Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function.  The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation?  Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator?  Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions?  Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour.  Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project?  It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.

  • SCOPE OF ARBITRATOR'S AUTHORITY The Arbitrator shall have no power to alter, amend, add to or subtract from the provisions of this Article or any other terms of this Agreement. If the Arbitrator finds that none of the charges contained in the Notice of Disciplinary Action are true, then he shall set aside the action taken by the appointing authority. If the Arbitrator finds that some or all of the charges are true, then he shall make a decision confirming or modifying the action of the appointing authority provided, however, that his authority to modify the appointing authority's action is limited to those disciplinary actions described in Section 3102. The Arbitrator shall have no authority to increase the discipline imposed by the appointing authority. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3105, nothing shall preclude the Arbitrator from ordering the reinstatement of an employee with or without back pay. The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding, subject to judicial review pursuant to Title 9 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, upon the employee, the County, and if applicable, VCPPOA.

  • Arbitrator’s Decision 27.3.3.1 The arbitrator's decision and award shall be in writing and shall state concisely the reasons for the award, including the arbitrator's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

  • CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION This agreement formalizes the mechanism that may be used by the City to transfer civil rights complaints to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission for investigation. ICRC will compensate the City for acting as the intake agent under this agreement. The City and ICRC have maintained this arrangement for several years. Transferring this time- consuming investigation responsibility to the ICRC will allow the Ames Human Relations Commission more time to devote to proactive educational projects in the community. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above.

  • JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.

  • Composition of Board of Arbitration When either party requests that a grievance be submitted to arbitration, the request shall be made by registered mail addressed to the other party of the Agreement, indicating the name of its nominee on an Arbitration Board. Within five (5) days thereafter, the other party shall answer by registered mail indicating the name and address of its appointee to the Arbitration Board. The two appointees shall select an impartial chairperson.

  • Composition of the Board of Arbitration When a party has requested that a grievance be submitted to arbitration, it shall indicate to the other party to the Agreement within seven days:

  • Representations and Recommendations Unless otherwise stated in writing, neither Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc, nor its brokers or licensees have made, on their own behalf, any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to any element of the Property including but not limited to, the legal sufficiency, legal effect, or tax consequences of this transaction. Any information furnished by either party should be independently verified before that party relies on such information. Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc. recommends that Buyer consult its attorneys and accountants before signing this Agreement regarding the terms and conditions herein and that Seller satisfy itself as to the financial ability of Buyer to perform.

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