Warning Letters Sample Clauses

Warning Letters. (a) In the event GSK receives or otherwise becomes aware of any notices, letters, warnings and/or other communications from any Governmental Authority or any other Person alleging or threatening that GSK or the Facility is or may be in violation of any Applicable Law that may affect or relate to the Products and/or result in the inability of GSK to perform its obligations hereunder, GSK shall immediately notify Prometheus thereof and shall promptly provide Prometheus copies of such notices, letters, warnings and/or other communications.
Warning Letters. Neither the Borrower nor any of its Subsidiaries has received any so called “Warning Letters”, or similar notifications, from the FDA (or analogous foreign, state or local Governmental Authority) for which the Borrower or such Subsidiary has not provided a response to or which has not otherwise been satisfied.
Warning Letters. The merits of a warning letter will not be heard unless such warn- ing letter is on file as being protested and the party is later sus- pended and/or discharged as a result of such warning letter. Such protested warning letter will be heard in accordance with Article VHEARING PROCEDURES.
Warning Letters. Employees have the right to have a warning letter removed from their personnel file if after a reasonable period of time the reason for the warning letter has been corrected. The first warning letter that an employee receives will not remain in the personnel file for longer than one year unless there are repeated offenses or insufficient progress. Warning letters may be removed earlier than one year by agreement of the Human Resources Director and the bargaining agent. If the first warning letter is to remain in the file for longer than six months, the employee will be provided an interim written progress report by the supervisor within six months from the issuance of the warning letter. Warning letters which are applicable to pending legal or quasi-legal proceedings may be retained in a separate file. Warning letters are subject to the grievance procedure.
Warning Letters. 3.1 Warnings might be issued for a variety of reasons and when considering issuing a warning, full consideration must be given to the items detailed below; if there is any question as to the involvement of the transport manager with a standard licence or directors with a restricted licence as to how they allowed any shortcomings to exist, a warning letter is unlikely to be appropriate. 3.2 The case must fall within the regulatory starting points detailed in STC Statutory Document No. 10. The operator/transport manager must not have been subject to a previous public inquiry. 3.3 Where the items of non compliance suggest a level of regulatory action higher than ‘LOW’ in Statutory Document No. 10, a warning can be considered if accompanied by further undertakings which fully address the identified shortcomings and future management of the transport operation. Any incident to be considered must not present a risk to road safety. The operator must have provided a full explanation for the incident and a repetition is considered unlikely, due to the mitigation given and the steps taken by the operator. 3.4 When considering whether a warning letter should be issued for maintenance issues, the following points offer direction as to how staff acting under delegations should reach a qualitative assessment. If any of the answers to the questions below is ‘Yes’ a submission to the traffic commissioner is likely to be required; 3.4.1 Is the non compliance an immediate risk to road safety? 3.4.2 Has there been a public inquiry in the past 5 years? 3.4.3 Are there concerns that the transport manager is not exercising continuous and affective management over the vehicle operation? 3.4.4 Is the operator’s explanation/mitigation incomplete, incoherent and has the operator failed to demonstrate that they have taken positive steps to ensure future compliance? 3.4.5 Have any of the prohibitions been “S” marked? 3.4.6 Is the annual test history across the previous two years below the national pass rate average once “Pass After Rectifications” (PRS) are removed? Consideration should be given to size and type of operator and the nature of the fail items. In certain cases especially where the operator has few vehicles or incidences of test the percentages may be exaggerated so this should be taken into account. Similarly, if the operator fails on items which are minor in nature and could have occurred on the journey to the test centre this should be taken into account. Any decision...
Warning Letters. Issued with two (2) warning letters/emails by the Sindh Bank Ltd in the past to the bidder for unsatisfactory performances.