Non-Compliance Any Products or Services that are not in conformity with the requirements of an Order (“Non-Complying Products” and “Non-Complying Services”, respectively), may be returned at DXC’s option at Supplier’s risk and expense. DXC may procure similar Products or Services in substitution for the Non-Complying Products or Services, and Supplier shall refund the cost of the Non-Complying Products and Service and reimburse DXC upon demand for all additional costs incurred by DXC.
Environmental Compliance The Borrower and its Subsidiaries conduct in the ordinary course of business a review of the effect of existing Environmental Laws and claims alleging potential liability or responsibility for violation of any Environmental Law on their respective businesses, operations and properties, and as a result thereof the Borrower has reasonably concluded that such Environmental Laws and claims could not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.
Complaints Investigation An employee who complains of harassment under the provisions of the Human Rights Code of British Columbia may refer the complaint to either one or other of the following processes:
OSHA Compliance To the extent applicable to the services to be performed under this Agreement, Contractor represents and warrants, that all articles and services furnished under this Agreement meet or exceed the safety standards established and promulgated under the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Law (Public Law 91-596) and its regulations in effect or proposed as of the date of this Agreement.
Grievance Investigation The Employer agrees to supply to the Union the names of all applicants for a vacancy, or new position in the course of a grievance investigation.
Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Development of a transportation project must comply with applicable environmental laws. The party named in article 1, Responsible Parties, under AGREEMENT is responsible for the following:
FERPA Compliance In connection with all FERPA Records that Contractor may create, receive or maintain on behalf of University pursuant to the Underlying Agreement, Contractor is designated as a University Official with a legitimate educational interest in and with respect to such FERPA Records, only to the extent to which Contractor (a) is required to create, receive or maintain FERPA Records to carry out the Underlying Agreement, and (b) understands and agrees to all of the following terms and conditions without reservation:
Noncompliance Except as otherwise provided for in Sections 10.1, 10.3 and 10.5(b), (a) failure or neglect of any Borrower or any Guarantor or any Person to perform, keep or observe any term, provision, condition, covenant herein contained, or contained in any Other Document or any other agreement or arrangement, now or hereafter entered into between any Borrower or any Guarantor or such Person, and Agent or any Lender, or (b) failure or neglect of any Borrower to perform, keep or observe any term, provision, condition or covenant, contained in Sections 4.6, 4.7, 4.9, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 9.4 or 9.6 hereof which is not cured within twenty (20) days from the occurrence of such failure or neglect;
Status Substantial Compliance Analysis The Compliance Officer found that PPB is in substantial compliance with Paragraph 80. See Sections IV and VII Report, p. 17. COCL carefully outlines the steps PPB has taken—and we, too, have observed—to do so. Id. We agree with the Compliance Officer’s assessment. In 2018, the Training Division provided an extensive, separate analysis of data concerning ECIT training. See Evaluation Report: 2018 Enhanced Crisis Intervention Training, Training usefulness, on-the-job applications, and reinforcing training objectives, February 2019. The Training Division assessed survey data showing broad officer support for the 2018 ECIT training. The survey data also showed a dramatic increase in the proportion of officers who strongly agree that their supervisors are very supportive of the ECIT program, reaching 64.3% in 2018, compared to only 14.3% in 2015: The Training Division analyzed the survey results of the police vehicle operator training and supervisory in-service training, as well. These analyses were helpful in understanding attendees’ impressions of training and its application to their jobs, though the analyses did not reach as far as the ECIT’s analysis of post-training on- the-job assessment. In all three training analyses, Training Division applied a feedback model to shape future training. This feedback loop was the intended purpose of Paragraph 80. PPB’s utilization of feedback shows PPB’s internalization of the remedy. We reviewed surveys of Advanced Academy attendees, as well. Attendees were overwhelmingly positive in response to the content of most classes. Though most respondents agreed on the positive aspects of keeping the selected course in the curriculum, a handful of attendees chose options like “redundant” and “slightly disagree,” indicating that the survey tools could be used for critical assessment and not merely PPB self-validation. We directly observed PPB training and evaluations since our last report. PPB provided training materials to the Compliance Officer and DOJ in advance of training. Where either identified issues, PPB worked through those issues and honed its materials. As Paragraph 80 requires, PPB’s training included competency-based evaluations, namely: knowledge checks (i.e., quizzes on directives), in-class responsive quizzes (using clickers to respond to questions presented to the group); knowledge tests (examinations via links PPB sent to each student’s Bureau-issued iPhone); demonstrated skills and oral examination (officers had to show proficiency in first aid skills, weapons use, and defensive tactics); and scenario evaluations (officers had to explain their reasoning for choices after acting through scenarios). These were the same sort of competency-based evaluations we commended in our last report. In this monitoring period, PPB applied the same type of evaluations to supervisory-level training as well as in-service training for all sworn members. PPB successfully has used the surveys, testing, and the training audit.
Suspension Pending Investigation When, in the judgment of the President, the presence of a Faculty Member on University property presents a threat to the health or safety of the Faculty Member or anyone in the University community or represents a threat of substantial disruption or substantial interference with the normal and lawful activities of the University community, the President may suspend with pay the Faculty Member pending the disposition of the disciplinary process provided in this Agreement. The President may also direct that the Faculty Member be removed and barred from University property. Such suspensions shall not be invoked in an arbitrary or capricious manner, and shall end upon the conclusion of the Article 9 investigation or, if discipline is proposed, at the end of any subsequent grievance proceeding.
