Preliminary Determination of Reasonable Suspicion of Substance Abuse Sample Clauses

Preliminary Determination of Reasonable Suspicion of Substance Abuse. 1. An order to undergo a test pursuant to this agreement shall be based on preliminary and final determinations of reasonable suspicion of substance abuse by designated supervisors. A supervisor shall base his or her preliminary determination on facts regarding the conduct, behavior, demeanor and statements of the employee observed by that supervisor or reliably and speedily reported to him or her. This preliminary determination shall be followed by a final determination by a second supervisor who must confirm the preliminary determination in order for testing to be ordered.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Preliminary Determination of Reasonable Suspicion of Substance Abuse

  • Reasonable Suspicion Testing The Employer may, but does not have a legal duty to, request or require an employee to undergo drug and alcohol testing if the Employer or any supervisor of the employee has a reasonable suspicion (a belief based on specific facts and rational inferences drawn from those facts) related to the performance of the job that the employee:

  • Certification of Funds; Budget and Fiscal Provisions; Termination in the Event of Non-Appropriation This Agreement is subject to the budget and fiscal provisions of the City’s Charter. Charges will accrue only after prior written authorization certified by the Controller, and the amount of City’s obligation hereunder shall not at any time exceed the amount certified for the purpose and period stated in such advance authorization. This Agreement will terminate without penalty, liability or expense of any kind to City at the end of any fiscal year if funds are not appropriated for the next succeeding fiscal year. If funds are appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year, this Agreement will terminate, without penalty, liability or expense of any kind at the end of the term for which funds are appropriated. City has no obligation to make appropriations for this Agreement in lieu of appropriations for new or other agreements. City budget decisions are subject to the discretion of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. Contractor’s assumption of risk of possible non-appropriation is part of the consideration for this Agreement. THIS SECTION CONTROLS AGAINST ANY AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

  • Independence from Material Breach Determination Except as set forth in Section X.D.1.c, these provisions for payment of Stipulated Penalties shall not affect or otherwise set a standard for OIG’s decision that CHSI has materially breached this CIA, which decision shall be made at OIG’s discretion and shall be governed by the provisions in Section X.D, below.

  • Deviation from Grievance Procedure The Employer agrees that, after a grievance has been discussed at Step 2 of the grievance procedure the Employer or his representatives shall not initiate any discussion or negotiations with respect to the grievance, either directly or indirectly with the aggrieved employee without the consent of the xxxxxxx or the Union.

  • CHILD AND DEPENDENT ADULT/ELDER ABUSE REPORTING CONTRACTOR shall establish a procedure acceptable to ADMINISTRATOR to ensure that all employees, agents, subcontractors, and all other individuals performing services under this Agreement report child abuse or neglect to one of the agencies specified in Penal Code Section 11165.9 and dependent adult or elder abuse as defined in Section 15610.07 of the WIC to one of the agencies specified in WIC Section 15630. CONTRACTOR shall require such employees, agents, subcontractors, and all other individuals performing services under this Agreement to sign a statement acknowledging the child abuse reporting requirements set forth in Sections 11166 and 11166.05 of the Penal Code and the dependent adult and elder abuse reporting requirements, as set forth in Section 15630 of the WIC, and shall comply with the provisions of these code sections, as they now exist or as they may hereafter be amended.

  • FLORIDA CONVICTED/SUSPENDED/DISCRIMINATORY COMPLAINTS By submission of an offer, the respondent affirms that it is not currently listed in the Florida Department of Management Services Convicted/Suspended/Discriminatory Complaint Vendor List.

  • Contract Renegotiation, Suspension, or Termination Due to Change in Funding If the funds DSHS relied upon to establish this Contract or Program Agreement are withdrawn, reduced or limited, or if additional or modified conditions are placed on such funding, after the effective date of this contract but prior to the normal completion of this Contract or Program Agreement:

  • HHS Single Audit Unit will notify Grantee to complete the Single Audit Determination Form If Grantee fails to complete the form within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of notice, Grantee maybe subject to sanctions and remedies for non-compliance.

  • Definition of Reportable Event For purposes of this CIA, a “Reportable Event” means anything that involves:

  • Penalty Determination H&SC section 39619.7 requires CARB to provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This Agreement includes this information, which is also summarized here. The provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provision being applied in this case is H&SC section 42402 et seq. because IIT sold, supplied, offered for sale, consumer products for commerce in California in violation of the Consumer Products Regulations (17 CCR section 94507 et seq.). The penalty provisions of H&SC section 42402 et seq. apply to violations of the Consumer Products Regulations because the regulations were adopted under authority of H&SC section 41712, which is in Part 4 of Division 26. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and mitigating factors and per unit or per vehicle basis for the penalty. H&SC section 42402 et seq. provides strict liability penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violations of the Consumer Product Regulations with each day being a separate violation. In cases like this, involving unintentional violations of the Consumer Products Regulations where the violator cooperates with the investigation, CARB has obtained penalties for selling uncertified charcoal lighter material in California. In this case, the total penalty is $7,500 for selling uncertified charcoal lighter material in California. The penalty in this case was reduced because this was a strict liability first-time violation and IIT made diligent efforts to cooperate with the investigation. To come into compliance, IIT no longer offers Safegel BBQ & Fireplace Lighting Gel Fire Starter for commerce in California. Final penalties were determined based on the unique circumstances of this matter, considered together with the need to remove any economic benefit from noncompliance, the goal of deterring future violations and obtaining swift compliance, the consideration of past penalties in similar negotiated cases, and the potential cost and risk associated with litigating these particular violations. The penalty reflects violations extending over a number of days resulting in quantifiable harm to the environment considered together with the complete circumstances of this case. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger on a per ton basis. The final penalty in this case was based in part on confidential financial information or confidential business information provided by IIT that is not retained by CARB in the ordinary course of business. The penalty in this case was also based on confidential settlement communications between CARB and IIT that CARB does not retain in the ordinary course of business. The penalty also reflects CARB’s assessment of the relative strength of its case against IIT, the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden and expense of litigation, obtain swift compliance with the law and remove any unfair advantage that IIT may have secured from its actions. Is the penalty being assessed under a provision of law that prohibits the emission of pollution at a specified level, and, if so a quantification of excess emissions, if it is practicable to do so. The Consumer Product Regulations do not prohibit emissions above a specified level, but they do limit the concentration of VOCs in regulated products. In this case, a quantification of the excess emissions attributable to the violations was not practicable.

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