Xxxxxxxxx Submissions, Discussions and Time Limits Sample Clauses

Xxxxxxxxx Submissions, Discussions and Time Limits. 1. All grievances will be filed in writing on a form mutually agreed to by the parties. All grievances will contain a clear statement of the issue, the specific provision(s) of the Agreement violated, the names of the Dispatcher(s) affected, the date of the alleged action, and the specific relief sought. A grievance not filed in accordance with the requirements listed above will be considered waived, and ineligible for further processing.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Xxxxxxxxx Submissions, Discussions and Time Limits

  • Actions and timeframes The parties agree the following actions and timeframes will be used:

  • Accurate and Timely Submission of Reports a) The reports and administrative fees shall be accurate and timely and submitted in accordance with the due dates specified in this section. Vendor shall correct any inaccurate reports or administrative fee payments within three (3) business days upon written notification by DIR. Vendor shall deliver any late reports or late administrative fee payments within three (3) business days upon written notification by DIR. If Vendor is unable to correct inaccurate reports or administrative fee payments or deliver late reports and fee payments within three

  • Accurate and Timely Contract Information Vendor warrants and represents that the website information specified in the above paragraph will be accurately and completely posted, maintained and displayed in an objective and timely manner. Vendor, at its own expense, shall correct any non- conforming or inaccurate information posted at Vendor’s website within ten (10) business days after written notification by DIR.

  • Waivers and Time Limits 1. Failure by Management to reply to the employee's grievance within the time limits specified automatically grants to the employee the right to process the grievance to the next level.

  • NOTIFICATIONS AND SUBMISSION OF REPORTS Unless otherwise stated in writing after the Effective Date, all notifications and reports required under this IA shall be submitted to the following entities: OIG: Administrative and Civil Remedies Branch Office of Counsel to the Inspector General Office of Inspector General U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Xxxxx Building, Room 5527 000 Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, XX Xxxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Facsimile: (000) 000-0000 LFAC: Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxx, DPM 0000 Xxxxxxxxxxx Xx. X-000 Xxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Email: xx.xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx Unless otherwise specified, all notifications and reports required by this IA may be made by electronic mail, overnight mail, hand delivery, or other means, provided that there is proof that such notification was received. Upon request by OIG, LFAC may be required to provide OIG with an additional copy of each notification or report required by this IA in OIG’s requested format (electronic or paper).

  • Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users?  Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain.  Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function.  The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation?  Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator?  Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions?  Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour.  Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project?  It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.

  • Procedure and Time Limits Step Two 100 If the grievance is not adjusted at Step One, the Faculty Member or group of Faculty Members or the Association may, within five (5) working days of the Step One answer, which shall also be concurrently provided to the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, appeal the grievance, in writing, to the appropriate Xxxx or other designated administrative agent, setting forth his/her (their) objections to the Step One answer. Upon receipt of the written appeal or at the signed written notice when initiation is at Step Two, the Xxxx or other designated administrative agent shall promptly arrange a meeting through the EMU-AAUP office to discuss the grievance with the grievant(s), the Association’s Grievance Officer, and such other persons as he/she deems appropriate. It is not appropriate at this level for the grieved department head or other grieved administrative agent involved at the Step One grievance hearing to be present at a Step Two grievance hearing. This discussion shall be completed within seven (7) working days after the filing of the grievance at Step Two. If the grievance is adjusted at this Step to the satisfaction of the grievant(s), the Association’s Grievance Officer and the Xxxx or other designated administrative agent, the adjustment will be reduced to writing, signed by the parties, and a copy provided to each signatory, the EMU-AAUP office and the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs. If there is not adjustment, the Xxxx or other designated administrative agent must present his/her reasons in writing to the grievant(s) with a copy to the EMU-AAUP office and the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Xxxx or administrative agent shall reduce the adjustment to writing or provide the reasons for denial of the grievance in writing to the grievant(s) within five (5) working days following the Step Two meeting. If, within five (5) working days of receipt thereof, XXX’s Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, or his/her designee, serves the Association’s Grievance Officer with written notice of objection to the adjustment on the grounds that the adjustment adds to, subtracts from, or modifies the terms of this agreement, said adjustment shall be deemed null and void and the grievance remanded for further review at Step Two. Within seven (7) working days of notice of remand, the parties’ Step Two representatives and the grievant(s) shall complete their review. The grievance shall thereafter be processed, adjusted or appealed within the timelines and procedures as set forth in this Grievance Procedure.

  • Notifications and filings The Principal Paying Agent shall (on behalf of the Issuers) make all necessary notifications and filings as may be required from time to time in relation to the issue, purchase and redemption of Notes by all applicable laws, regulations and guidelines and, in particular but without limitation, those promulgated by, Japanese governmental or regulatory authorities, in the case of Notes denominated in Japanese Yen and the Bank of England, in the case of Notes denominated in sterling. Save as aforesaid, the relevant Issuer shall be solely responsible for ensuring that each Note to be issued or other transactions to be effected hereunder shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of any governmental or other regulatory authority and that all necessary consents and approvals of, notifications to and registrations and filings with, any such authority in connection therewith are effected, obtained and maintained in full force and effect.

  • Errors, Questions, and Complaints a. In case of errors or questions about your transactions, you should as soon as possible contact us as set forth in Section 6 of the General Terms above.

  • Information Submission by Participating TO The initial information submission by the Participating TO shall occur no later than one hundred eighty (180) Calendar Days prior to Trial Operation and shall include the Participating TO’s Transmission System information necessary to allow the Interconnection Customer to select equipment and meet any system protection and stability requirements, unless otherwise agreed to by the Participating TO and the Interconnection Customer. On a monthly basis the Participating TO shall provide the Interconnection Customer and the CAISO a status report on the construction and installation of the Participating TO’s Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades, including, but not limited to, the following information: (1) progress to date; (2) a description of the activities since the last report; (3) a description of the action items for the next period; and (4) the delivery status of equipment ordered.

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