Collaborative Relationship Sample Clauses

Collaborative Relationship. The parties agree that a collaborative relationship is a mutual benefit. The employer will endeavour to engage with the local union executive to participate in committees, standing and ad hoc. Direct and timely input from a member of the Local Union executive could be beneficial and assist with the work of a committee, task force, focus group and other forums which are utilized by the ROMHC. Particularly, in such instances, where the result would impact nursing practices, working conditions or patient care.

Collaborative Relationship. ‌ The Parties agree to use best efforts to establish a new collaborative, long-term and evolving relationship in relation to land, resources and economic development in respect of the Claim Area.

Collaborative Relationship. The Parties each accept the relationship of mutual trust, good faith and fair dealing established by this Agreement and covenants with each other to cooperate and exercise their skill and judgment in furthering the interests of the Project. The Designer and Constructor each represents that it possesses the requisite skill, expertise, and, as applicable, licensing to perform the required services. The Owner, Constructor, Designer and all members of the CPD Team agree to adhere to principles of collaboration based on mutual trust, confidence, good faith and fair dealing. Within the scope of their respective expertise, the Parties shall together actively and continually pursue collaboration in the best interests of the Project The Parties shall endeavor to promote harmony and collaboration among all Project participants.

Collaborative Relationship. (a) The relationship between the Partner and Webull is one of a mutually independent voluntary collaboration, and this Agreement is not intended to, nor should it be construed to, establish a partnership, agency, joint venture, and/or employment relationship. (b) In this Program, Partners are not authorized to make any representations, promises and/or statements on behalf of Webull unless expressly authorized in writing by Webull.

Collaborative Relationship. The project responsibilities will be shared between the companies as follows: APTEL will be responsible for the development of the [*]. APTEL will also test the DSP chip developed by DSP Group with other manufacturers chip sets. In addition, APTEL will define the RF functionality of the DSP chip developed. APTEL focus will be on product management and R&D aspects of the project. DSP Group will lead the development of the DSP chips and will take the lead in overseeing the production of both the DSP chip and the RF unit. DSP Group will also be responsible for marketing both the DSP chip and the RF components developed by APTEL. [*] Confidential Treatment Requested

Collaborative Relationship. Pact’s COP continued to communicate regularly with the focal person at PO-RALG, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (Acting Assistant Director for Social Welfare). Through this relationship, Kizazi Kipya is able to receive the support and advice necessary for Pact, the consortium partners, and CSOs to carry out their duties effectively and efficiently. For example, in Q3 ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ supported the project with guidance on paying government staff allowances during their participation on project activities. Kizazi Kipya cluster staff continued to nurture relationships with regional- and council-level government during CSO visits. In Q3, Pact signed a tripartite MOU in 64 of 67 councils between Pact, the CSO, and the LGA. The MOU is an adapted version of the national MOU with PO-RALG and includes more details on relationships for social welfare, child protection, health, referrals, and education components. The remaining three councils in mainland Tanzania were delayed simply due to signatory availability and will be signed in early Q4. The government of Zanzibar is making specific changes to the MOU to reflect different government structures in that area. The COP will sign the MOU in Q4 with the Zanzibar Principal Secretary for Labor, Empowerment, Elders, Youth, Women, and Children. Pact shared the project work plan with PO-RALG in Q1 and shared the final list of proposed CSOs selected by the RFA process in Q2. During Q3, the 48 CSOs selected by RFA began to share their FY17 plans with LGAs in scale-up councils; these discussions will continue into Q4. When Pact met with the PS-Health in Q1 to introduce the project, he requested that Pact provide an operational plan describing the cadre of volunteers the project planned to use and also describing integration of the various results areas of the project. Pact submitted the operational plan to NACP for review in January 2017. Despite several requests, Pact had still not received any feedback from NACP by the end of Q3 and was unable to schedule a meeting with NACP for further discussion. Submission of the operational plan to the PS-Health is a pending action for Q4. In the meantime, Pact submitted the Q2 narrative report to the PS-Health, PS-Community Development, and PS-PORALG to provide an update on implementation status. Pact is planning to meet with key department heads and with the PS-Health, PS-Community Development, and PS-PORALG in Q4 to discuss preliminary FY18 plans. Other requirements in this section of the MOU largely...