Desk Audit/Position Review Sample Clauses

Desk Audit/Position Review. Prior to requesting a desk audit/position review, the employee and supervisor will discuss current duties assigned, current position and whether or not the current duties fall within the scope of the current Position Description (PD). If the employee’s current PD is inaccurate, the employee may be reassigned to the appropriate PD if otherwise qualified. In the event the discussion does not resolve the employee’s concerns, then the Employee may request a desk audit/position review in accordance with Departmental Regulations 0000-000-000 (Position Classification). The employee and/or supervisor shall enter a request into the current automated system, with approval within 30 days of the employee’s request for desk audit/position review. The Classifier will gather information and consider written and/or oral comments, obtained from the employee and the supervisor separately. A determination on the review will be made by a Classifier, normally within 60 days. If reviews are projected to take longer, the Classifier will engage directly with the employee to communicate the expected timeline. Management will communicate the position review determination to the employee. If the employee is not satisfied with the results of the review procedure, they may grieve the accuracy of the position description or results of the position review. Management shall refrain from temporarily reassigning an employee's work during the position review if the sole purpose for reassigning the work is to avoid reclassification of the employee's position.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Desk Audit/Position Review

  • Position Review ‌ The Employer may initiate a position review for a position it believes is improperly classified, and will inform the Union in writing when it has initiated a reallocation process for a bargaining unit position. An individual employee who believes that their position is improperly classified may request a review according to the following procedure:

  • 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.

  • Classification Review (a) An Employee who has reason to believe that they are improperly classified due to a substantial change in job duties, may apply to the Department Director, or designate, to have the Employee’s classification reviewed. The Director, or designate, will review the Employee’s application and advise the Employee of the Employer’s decision.

  • Utilization Review We review health services to determine whether the services are or were Medically Necessary or experimental or investigational ("Medically Necessary"). This process is called Utilization Review. Utilization Review includes all review activities, whether they take place prior to the service being performed (Preauthorization); when the service is being performed (concurrent); or after the service is performed (retrospective). If You have any questions about the Utilization Review process, please call the number on Your ID card. The toll-free telephone number is available at least 40 hours a week with an after-hours answering machine. All determinations that services are not Medically Necessary will be made by: 1) licensed Physicians; or 2) licensed, certified, registered or credentialed health care professionals who are in the same profession and same or similar specialty as the Provider who typically manages Your medical condition or disease or provides the health care service under review. We do not compensate or provide financial incentives to Our employees or reviewers for determining that services are not Medically Necessary. We have developed guidelines and protocols to assist Us in this process. Specific guidelines and protocols are available for Your review upon request. For more information, call the number on Your ID card or visit Our website at xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx.

  • SAO AUDIT A. The state auditor may conduct an audit or investigation of any entity receiving funds from the state directly under the Contract or indirectly through a subcontract under the Contract. The acceptance of funds directly under the Contract or indirectly through a subcontract under the Contract acts as acceptance of the authority of the state auditor, under the direction of the legislative audit committee, to conduct an audit or investigation in connection with those funds. Under the direction of the legislative audit committee, an entity that is the subject of an audit or investigation by the state auditor must provide the state auditor with access to any information the state auditor considers relevant to the investigation or audit.

  • Customer Audit Customer or its independent third party auditor reasonably acceptable to SAP (which shall not include any third party auditors who are either a competitor of SAP or not suitably qualified or independent) may audit SAP’s control environment and security practices relevant to Personal Data processed by SAP only if:

  • Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be:

  • Periodic Review The General Counsel shall periodically review the Procurement Integrity Procedures with OSC personnel in order to ascertain potential areas of exposure to improper influence and to adopt desirable revisions for more effective avoidance of improper influences.

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

  • Independent Analysis Each Party hereby confirms that its decision to execute this Agreement has been based upon its independent assessment of documents and information available to it, as it has deemed appropriate.

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