Decisions to Be Forwarded. All decisions shall be forwarded in writing to the grievor and to the Bargaining Agent within ten (10) days.
Decisions to Be Forwarded Sample Clauses
Related to Decisions to Be Forwarded
Decisions to Withhold Certification § 9.5.1 The Architect may withhold a Certificate for Payment in whole or in part, to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the Owner, if in the Architect’s opinion the representations to the Owner required by Section 9.4.2 cannot be made. If the Architect is unable to certify payment in the amount of the Application, the Architect will notify the Contractor and Owner as provided in Section 9.4.1. If the Contractor and Architect cannot agree on a revised amount, the Architect will promptly issue a Certificate for Payment for the amount for which the Architect is able to make such representations to the Owner. The Architect may also withhold a Certificate for Payment or, because of subsequently discovered evidence, may nullify the whole or a part of a Certificate for Payment previously issued, to such extent as may be necessary in the Architect’s opinion to protect the Owner from loss for which the Contractor is responsible, including loss resulting from acts and omissions described in Section 3.3.2, because of .1 defective Work not remedied;
Submissions on Behalf of Others Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation, You may submit it to OIDF separately from any Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to, related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]".
Decisions by Members Whenever in this Agreement reference is made to the decision, consent, approval, judgment, or action of the Members, unless otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, such decision, consent, approval, judgment, or action shall mean a Majority of the Members.
Decisions of the Board The decision of the majority shall be the decision of the Board. Where there is no majority decision, the decision of the Chairperson shall be the decision of the Board. The decision of the Board of Arbitration shall be final and binding and enforceable on all parties, but in no event shall the Board of Arbitration have the power to change this Agreement or to alter, modify or amend any of its provisions. However, the Board shall have the power to dispose of any discharge or a discipline grievance by any arrangement which in its opinion it deems just and equitable.
PROVISIONS REQUIRED BY LAW DEEMED INSERTED Each and every provision of law and clause required by law to be inserted in this Contract shall be deemed to be inserted herein and this Contract shall be read and enforced as though it were included therein.
Decisions The General Assembly shall be free to act on its own initiative to formulate proposals and take decisions in accordance with the procedures set out herein. In addition, all proposals made by the Executive Board shall also be considered and decided upon by the General Assembly. The following decisions shall be taken by the General Assembly: Content, finances and intellectual property rights - Proposals for changes to Annexes 1 and 2 of the Grant Agreement to be agreed by the Funding Authority - Changes to the Consortium Plan - Modifications to Attachment 1 (Background Included) - Additions to Attachment 3 (List of Third Parties for simplified transfer according to Section 8.2.2) - Additions to Attachment 4 (Identified Affiliated Entities)] Evolution of the consortium - Entry of a new Party to the consortium and approval of the settlement on the conditions of the accession of such a new Party - Withdrawal of a Party from the consortium and the approval of the settlement on the conditions of the withdrawal - Identification of a breach by a Party of its obligations under this Consortium Agreement or the Grant Agreement - Declaration of a Party to be a Defaulting Party The identification of the breach is a first step in accordance with the procedure in 4.2 before declaring a Party as a Defaulting Party. - Remedies to be performed by a Defaulting Party - Termination of a Defaulting Party’s participation in the consortium and measures relating thereto - Proposal to the Funding Authority for a change of the Coordinator - Proposal to the Funding Authority for suspension of all or part of the Project - Proposal to the Funding Authority for termination of the Project and the Consortium Agreement Appointments On the basis of the Grant Agreement, the appointment if necessary of: - Executive Board Members
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.
Review by the Bank of Procurement Decisions The Procurement Plan shall set forth those contracts which shall be subject to the Bank’s Prior Review. All other contracts shall be subject to Post Review by the Bank.
Disclosure Statement for Xxxx IRAs 1. Am I Eligible to Contribute to a Xxxx XXX? Anyone with compensation income whose Modified Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) does not exceed the limits described below is eligible to contribute to a Xxxx XXX. (For convenience, all future references to compensation are deemed to mean “earned income” in the case of a self- employed individual.) Employers may also contribute to Xxxx IRAs established for the benefit of their employees. You may also establish a Xxxx XXX to receive rollover contributions or transfers from another Xxxx XXX or, in some cases, from a Traditional IRA. A Qualified Rollover Contribution can be made to a Xxxx XXX and is a distribution from an IRA that meets the requirements of section 408(d)(3), a rollover from a designated Xxxx account described in section 402A, or a rollover from an eligible retirement plan as described in section 402(c)(8)(B).
Submission of Certified Payroll Transcripts for Public Works Contracts Only Contractors and Subcontractors on public works projects must submit monthly payroll transcripts to the Authorized User that has prepared or directs the preparation of the plans and specifications for a public works project, as set forth in the Bid Specifications. For Mini-Bid solicitations, the payroll records must be submitted to the entity preparing the agency Mini-Bid project specification. For “agency specific” Bids, the payroll records should be submitted to the entity issuing the purchase order. For all other OGS Centralized Contracts, such records should be submitted to the individual agency issuing the purchase order(s) for the work. Upon mutual agreement of the Contractor and the Authorized User, the form of submission may be submitted in a specified disk format acceptable to the Department of Labor provided: 1) the Contractor/Subcontractor retains the original records; and, (2) an original signed letter by a duly authorized individual of the Contractor or Subcontractor attesting to the truth and accuracy of the records accompanies the disk. This provision does not apply to Article 9 of the Labor Law building services contracts.
