Evaluation Discussion Sample Clauses

Evaluation Discussion. The completed evaluation form shall be shown to the employee being evaluated and each item discussed, with a minimum of thirty (30) minutes allocated to the employee to discuss the evaluation and ask or answer pertinent questions. Generally, evaluation discussions shall be conducted between the immediate supervisor and the employee, and a CSEA representative, should the employee request representation. If the immediate supervisor desires to have another person present, the immediate supervisor shall notify the employee at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance and advise him/her of their right to have a CSEA representative present. All evaluations shall be maintained in confidence.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Evaluation Discussion. 15.3.1 Evaluator and unit member shall discuss the evaluation.
Sample 1Sample 2
Evaluation Discussion. 8.5.1 The unit member shall be notified in writing of an evaluation discussion at least three (3) working days prior to the evaluation discussion. The completed evaluation form shall be shown to the unit member being evaluated and each item discussed, with a minimum of thirty (30) minutes allocated to the unit member to discuss the evaluation and ask or answer pertinent questions. Generally, evaluation discussions shall be conducted between the immediate supervisor and the unit member. If the immediate supervisor desires to have another administrator or manager present, the immediate supervisor shall notify the unit member at least three (3) working days in advance. A CSEA representative will be present if, the unit member requests representation.
Sample 1
Evaluation Discussion. Any written documents that are part of the annual evaluation program must be discussed between the employee and the evaluator. The employee shall have at least 24 hours notice prior to such meeting. The meeting will be conducted during the employee’s regular working hours. The employee will be provided a written copy of the evaluation which shall be signed by the employee. The signature shall indicate that the employee has seen the evaluation, and not that the employee necessarily agrees with the evaluation. The employee may append a written response to the evaluation, to be included in the employee’s personnel file.
Sample 1
Evaluation Discussion. The employee shall schedule a meeting with the evaluator to discuss the evaluation if the employee does not understand or does not agree with the evaluation.
Sample 1
Evaluation Discussion. Performance evaluations must be discussed thoroughly with each bargaining unit member before they are to be included in the bargaining unit member's personnel file and shall bear both the signature of the immediate supervisor and the bargaining unit member. A bargaining unit member's signature on his/her evaluation will not necessarily constitute his/her approval, but is merely an indication that he/she is completely familiar with the evaluation. If the bargaining unit member disagrees with the evaluation, he/she may offer written comments which shall be placed in the file with the evaluation. In subsequent evaluations, failure to comment on a previously identified deficiency shall indicate that the deficiency was corrected. An appeal procedure of the evaluation shall be available to all members through the manager to whom the member’s supervisor reports.
Sample 1
Evaluation Discussion a. Permanent unit members will be given at least two (2) days’ notice of their evaluation discussion. If, after receiving notice, the employee is absent on the day of the scheduled evaluation discussion, the District, at its option, can hold the evaluation discussion on the first day of the employee's return or any point thereafter without further notice.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Evaluation Discussion. After discussing the evaluation with the employee, the evaluation will be signed and dated by both the evaluator and the employee. The signature of the employee signifies only that the employee has read the written evaluation. The teacher does not waive any right to due process, to appeal, to grievance and the signature does not in any way signify agreement with the evaluation. The employee being evaluated has the exclusive right to include a written statement as an addendum to the evaluation form, if it is so desired, within five (5) working days of the evaluation conference. The teacher may request an additional conference with the evaluator to review the evaluation in the presence of an association representative.
Sample 1
Evaluation Discussion 
Sample 1

Related to Evaluation Discussion

  • Informal Discussion If an employee has a problem relating to a work situation, the employee is encouraged to request a meeting with his or her immediate supervisor to discuss the problem in an effort to clarify the issue and to work cooperatively towards settlement.

  • Informal Discussions The employee's concerns will be presented orally by the employee to the appropriate supervisor. Every effort shall be made by all concerned in an informal manner to develop an understanding of the facts and the issues in order to create a climate which will lead to resolution of the problem. If the employee is not satisfied with the informal discussion(s) relative to the matter in question, he/she may proceed to the formal grievance procedure.

  • Discussion Staff has reviewed the proposal relative to all relevant policies and advise that it is reasonably consistent with the intent of the MPS. Attachment B provides an evaluation of the proposed development agreement in relation to the relevant MPS policies.

  • Evaluation 1. The purposes of evaluation provisions include providing employees with feedback, and employers and employees with the opportunity and responsibility to address concerns. Where a grievance proceeds to arbitration, the arbitrator must consider these purposes, and may relieve on just and reasonable terms against breaches of time limits or other procedural requirements.

  • Evaluation Cycle Goal Setting and Development of the Educator Plan

  • Settlement Discussions This Agreement is part of a proposed settlement of matters that could otherwise be the subject of litigation among the Parties hereto. Nothing herein shall be deemed an admission of any kind. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and any applicable state rules of evidence, this Agreement and all negotiations relating thereto shall not be admissible into evidence in any proceeding other than to prove the existence of this Agreement or in a proceeding to enforce the terms of this Agreement.

  • Evaluation Process A. The immediate supervisor will meet with an employee at the start of the employee’s probationary, trial services, transition, and annual review period to discuss performance expectations. The employee will receive copies of their performance expectations as well as notification of any modifications made during the review period. Employee work performance will be evaluated during probationary, trial service and transition review periods and at least annually thereafter. Notification will be given to a probationary or trial service employee whose work performance is determined to be unsatisfactory.

  • 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.

  • Existing Discussions The Company agrees that it will immediately cease and cause to be terminated any existing activities, discussions or negotiations with any Persons conducted heretofore with respect to any Acquisition Proposal. The Company agrees that it will take the necessary steps to promptly inform the individuals or entities referred to in the first sentence hereof of the obligations undertaken in this Section 6.2. The Company also agrees that it will promptly request each Person that has heretofore executed a confidentiality agreement in connection with its consideration of acquiring it or any of its Subsidiaries to return or destroy all confidential information heretofore furnished to such Person by or on behalf of it or any of its Subsidiaries.

  • Results and Discussion Table 1 (top) shows the root mean square error (RMSE) between the three tests for different numbers of topics. These results show that all three tests largely agree with each other but as the sample size (number of topics) decreases, the agreement decreases. In line with the results found for 50 topics, the randomization and bootstrap tests agree more with the t-test than with each other. We looked at pairwise scatterplots of the three tests at the different topic sizes. While there is some disagreement among the tests at large p-values, i.e. those greater than 0.5, none of the tests would predict such a run pair to have a significant difference. More interesting to us is the behavior of the tests for run pairs with lower p-values. ≥ Table 1 (bottom) shows the RMSE among the three tests for run pairs that all three tests agreed had a p-value greater than 0.0001 and less than 0.5. In contrast to all pairs with p-values 0.0001 (Table 1 top), these run pairs are of more importance to the IR researcher since they are the runs that require a statistical test to judge the significance of the per- formance difference. For these run pairs, the randomization and t tests are much more in agreement with each other than the bootstrap is with either of the other two tests. Looking at scatterplots, we found that the bootstrap tracks the t-test very well but shows a systematic bias to produce p-values smaller than the t-test. As the number of topics de- creases, this bias becomes more pronounced. Figure 1 shows a pairwise scatterplot of the three tests when the number of topics is 10. The randomization test also tends to produce smaller p-values than the t-test for run pairs where the t- test estimated a p-value smaller than 0.1, but at the same time, produces some p-values greater than the t-test’s. As Figure 1 shows, the bootstrap consistently gives smaller p- values than the t-test for these smaller p-values. While the bootstrap and the randomization test disagree with each other more than with the t-test, Figure 1 shows that for a low number of topics, the randomization test shows less noise in its agreement with the bootstrap com- Figure 1: A pairwise comparison of the p-values less than 0.25 produced by the randomization, t-test, and the bootstrap tests for pairs of TREC runs with only 10 topics. The small number of topics high- lights the differences between the three tests. pared to the t-test for small p-values.

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