Ⓐ INTRODUCTION Clause Samples
The 'Introduction' clause serves to set the stage for the agreement by outlining its general purpose and context. Typically, it identifies the parties involved, the nature of their relationship, and the overarching objectives of the contract. This clause helps ensure that all parties have a shared understanding of the agreement's intent and scope, thereby reducing ambiguity and providing a clear foundation for the more detailed provisions that follow.
Ⓐ INTRODUCTION. ▇▇▇▇ is committed to creating organizational structures and processes that solidify the collaborative relationship between MCPS and the teachers’ representative orga- nization, MCEA, so that all parties will work together to do what is best for students. We define collaboration as a process in which partners work together in a meaningful way and within a time frame that provides a real opportunity to shape results. The purpose of the process is to work together re- spectfully to resolve problems, address common issues, and identify opportunities for improvement. To be suc- cessful, the collaborative process must be taken seriously and be valued by both parties. The process must be given the time, personal involvement and commitment, hard work, and dedication that are required to be suc- cessful. The partners will identify and define issues of common concern, propose and evaluate solutions, and agree on recommendations. B The Board of Education and the superintendent agree to meet with the Association’s Board of Directors at mutually agreed upon times to discuss matters of in- terest and concern. The Association’s Board of Directors will submit items to be included on the agenda five working days prior to the meeting. The Association’s Board of Directors will meet with the superintendent at least once a month during the term of this agreement to review and discuss matters of mutual concern and administration of this Agreement Ⓒ ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE OF RESPECT The parties are committed to fostering an organiza- tional culture of respect throughout the school system (see Appendix B for the entire document). This culture is built on the belief that all employees are essential for the school system to attain equity and excellence for all students. To accomplish this there must be a SYSTEMWIDE commitment to ▇▇▇▇▇▇ this organizational culture of respect and there must be accountability at all levels of the organization. The parties recognize this collective bargaining relationship is essential to enhance this culture. The organizational culture of respect is based on the following principles: ■ Trust in each other and the process ■ Use of collaborative and interest-based processes ■ Recognition of every employee’s contributions ■ High expectations for all staff and students that are reasonable, clear, and transparent ■ Open, honest contributions without fear of retribution ■ Open and effective communication ■ Respect for various points of view ■ Civility in all...
Ⓐ INTRODUCTION. MCPS is committed to creating organizational structures and processes that solidify the collaborative relationship between MCPS and the teachers’ representative orga- nization, MCEA, so that all parties will work together to do what is best for students. We define collaboration as a process in which partners work together in a meaningful way and within a time frame that provides a real opportunity to shape results. The purpose of the process is to work together re- spectfully, to resolve problems, address common issues, and identify opportunities for improvement. To be successful, the collaborative process must be taken seriously and be valued by both parties. The process must be given the time, personal involvement and com- mitment, hard work, and dedication that are required to be successful. The partners will identify and define issues of common concern, propose and evaluate so- lutions, and agree on recommendations. The following requirements must be met in order to achieve effective collaboration: ■ Systemwide commitment at all levels of the organization ■ Open and effective communication ■ Trust in each other and the process ■ An authentic process of genuine representation ■ Open, honest contributions without fear of retribution ■ Respect for various points of view ■ Training of participants in processes that support collaboration ■ Effective problem-solving processes ■ Implementation plans for collaborative decisions It is in our mutual interest to be involved in collab- orative processes whenever possible. The following are examples of areas where collaborative processes have been used: ■ The strategic direction of MCPS ■ MCPS budget ■ Training and professional development ■ Professional growth cycle and teacher performance evaluation ■ Local school governance ■ Dispute resolution ■ Employee benefits programs ■ Participation of the MCEA president in MCPS lead- ership team meetings ■ Creation of a teacher co-coordinator for the Professional Growth System ■ The MCEA Forum on Outlook B LABOR-MANAGEMENT COLLABORATION COMMITTEE
Ⓐ INTRODUCTION. The ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ robot will guide transfer passengers at an airport from their arrival gate to their gate of departure. Given that flying is not an everyday activity, such a transfer can be stressful. An ethno- graphic study by the SPENCER industrial partner KLM showed that even experienced flyers mostly associate negative emotions with the process of “transferring”. In order to help transfer passengers during their transfer, a robot will guide passengers to their next gate. Task 4.1 is concerned with the selection and evaluation of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ robot’s spatio-temporal behaviors and ensuring that they adhere to social norms for the scenarios as specified for the project. This deliverable follows up on D4.1 which was delivered in M12. In D4.1 we presented a literature overview, a summary of two studies conducted and research questions guiding our research during the next two years. In this deliverable we present the same literature overview (Section B). The core of this report consists of the extended abstracts of studies conducted in year 1, (Section C, previously reported in D4.1) and studies conducted in years 2 and 3 (Section D). Full papers of the seven user studies are included at the end of this deliverable. After presenting the extended abstracts, we present a conclusion of the deliverable in Section E. The Functional noise study (Section C.1) summarizes a lab experiment in which we added artifi- cial noise to two robots that differed in height. In this section we show the importance of functional noise [25, 38] when approaching people. The Culture spacing survey (Section C.2) deals with cross- cultural human-robot interaction, and summarizes the results of a survey distributed to three countries (China, Argentina and the United States) [26, 24]. The Contextual analysis (Section D.1) describes a systematic observation we conducted at Schiphol airport to further refine the use case scenarios and identifies possible normative behaviors for the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ robot. In Section D.2 we describe the Telepresence murder study, which we conducted in collaboration with the EU project TERESA1. In this study we measured a groups subjective and objective behavior when a robot partner joined and left the group [61]. In the Robot appearance study (Section D.3) we investigated different appearances of the robot in terms of head direction while driving [22]. We concluded that during driving the head of the robot should face forward, somewhat in contrast to previous research whi...
Ⓐ INTRODUCTION. In an increasingly globalised economy, commercial transactions often involve business entities from different countries. These cross-border transactions present complex legal questions, such as the place where potential disputes will be adjudicated. To provide certainty, commercial parties often conclude ex ante agreements on the venue for dispute resolution by selecting the court(s) of a particular state. However, what happens if no such express agreement over venue is reached for resolving a contractual dispute? Could consent to the venue be implicitly inferred from the parties’ conduct or other factors? Explicit jurisdiction clauses offer cross-border litigants the benefit of predictability by allowing them to anticipate where disputes arising from their commercial transactions will be resolved. However, business entities sometimes neglect to include express provisions for the venue, whether inadvertently or due to their inexperience. In such cases, firms may have implicitly agreed on a venue through their actions or based on their tacit understanding. This type of ‘unwritten’ jurisdiction agreement remains largely unexplored in the legal scholarship. Relatively recently, the validity or enforceability of implied jurisdiction agreements arose in the Privy Council Case of Vizcaya Partners Ltd v ▇▇▇▇▇▇ & Anor [2016] UKPC 5. In this Case, following a comprehensive survey of the existing academic and judicial authorities, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ held that since it is commonplace for a contractual agreement or consent to be implied or inferred, ‘there is no reason in principle why the position should be any different in the case of a contractual agreement or consent to the jurisdiction of a foreign court’. However, in the wake of the above Case, the notion of an implied jurisdiction agreement drew limited scholarly research attention (for instance, see ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, (2023); ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2016). Moreover, there has been no systematic analysis of how it aligns with the needs of the international business community. In our latest article, published in the 2023 edition of the Journal of Private International Law, vol. 19(3), we examine the enforceability of implied jurisdiction agreements from a global comparative perspective. Therefore, our paper provides the first comparative global perspective of the enforcement of implied jurisdiction in international contracts. Our analysis reveals uncertain and subjective standards for implied jurisdiction agreements, which undermine the ne...
Ⓐ INTRODUCTION. The representatives of the Board of Port Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as “the Port”) and of Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”) Local 1021, AFL- CIO, as successor to Local 790, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as “the Union”), have met and conferred and have reached an understanding on the following matters, which they jointly have recommended to the Board of Port commissioners and to Local 1021 membership for ratification. It is understood the provisions herein set forth supersede previous Memoranda of Understanding between the Port and the Union and incorporate previously implemented items in such previous Memoranda to the extent still applicable. The Port agrees to a single MOU for the Maintenance-Operations Unit and the Clerical-Administrative Unit, provided such differences which may have historically been developed shall not be changed without mutual agreement.