WORKLOAD APPEAL Clause Samples

The WORKLOAD APPEAL clause establishes a process for employees to formally challenge or request a review of their assigned workload if they believe it is unreasonable or unfair. Typically, this clause outlines the steps an employee must follow to submit an appeal, such as notifying a supervisor or human resources, and may specify timelines for review and resolution. Its core practical function is to provide a structured mechanism for addressing workload disputes, ensuring that concerns are heard and potentially resolved, thereby promoting fairness and preventing overburdening of employees.
WORKLOAD APPEAL. Workload assignments may be appealed, first to the department head, and then to the ▇▇▇▇. If no resolution is achieved, the appeal will go to a workload appeals committee composed of two non-tenure-track faculty, two academic administrators, and one at-large member. The AFMSU shall appoint the NTT faculty members and the Administration shall appoint the administrators. The foregoing four members shall unanimously select a tenured faculty member to serve as the at-large member. If the committee members cannot come to agreement regarding the at-large member of the committee, the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ shall appoint the at-large member. Workloads may be appealed only if the work load units assigned in a contract are inconsistent with work load units assigned for similar work under similar conditions in other contracts, or when the administration substantively changes the terms and conditions of work as laid out in the faculty member’s contract during the term of the contract. Otherwise, if a faculty member signs a contract, it is expected that they are agreeing to the conditions established within that contract. The procedural rules of the committee shall be as follows: The ▇▇▇▇, or department head, and faculty member shall make formal proposals concerning the assignment of workload to the committee. The committee will be charged with resolving the differences. Such a resolution may include selecting one of the formal proposals or a compromise assignment. In making its decision, the committee will attempt to balance the following standards: (A) Demonstrated need for the assignment, according to departmental, college/school, or University demands, or University-wide productivity guidelines. (B) Consistency in the assignment of workload units for similar work under similar conditions. (C) Conformity of the assignment with provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. The committee shall submit its recommendation to the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ for a decision. The ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇'▇ decision shall focus solely on the above listed standards. The ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇'▇ decision can be grieved pursuant to the grievance and arbitration provision of the collective bargaining agreement only if it is in conflict with a four-to-one or five-to-zero vote of the committee in favor of the faculty member.
View SourceView Similar (8)
WORKLOAD APPEAL. If a faculty member believes his/her workload assignment is unreasonable and/or burdensome, s/he may ask for a review/assessment to be done by the unit administrator. If the review/assessment is unresolved at this level, the faculty member may request reconsideration by the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs, who shall consult with the Federation President or designee before issuing his/her final disposition.
View SourceView Similar (6)

Related to WORKLOAD APPEAL

  • Workloads The parties agree to the following provisions relating to faculty members' workload. (a) The registration limits for all courses currently offered by the Employer in the academic, career and technology areas are 35 unless established by practice as lower, excepting multiple sections where the limit is the correct multiple of the number of sections involved. (b) The registration limits for English are as follows: (i) Writing and Composition Courses - 25 (ii) Writing Skills -17 (iii) Creative Writing - 22

  • Workload An employee who believes that her workload is unsafe or consistently excessive shall discuss the problem with her immediate supervisor. If the problem is not resolved in this discussion, the employee may seek a remedy by means of the grievance procedure. If the matter is not resolved in the grievance procedure, it may be referred to troubleshooter who shall: a) investigate the difference; b) define the issue in the difference; and c) make written recommendations to resolve the differences.

  • Design Review ‌ (a) Where so specified in Schedule A (Scope of Goods and Services) or as otherwise instructed by the City, the Supplier shall submit design-related Documentation for review by the City, and shall not proceed with work on the basis of such design Documentation until the City’s approval of such Documentation has been received in writing. (b) None of: (i) the submission of Documentation to the City by the Supplier; (ii) its examination by or on behalf of the City; or (iii) the making of any comment thereon (including any approval thereof) shall in any way relieve the Supplier of any of its obligations under this Agreement or of its duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and correctness of such Documentation, and its suitability to the matter to which it relates.

  • Change Order The Change Order is then submitted to the Project Manager who immediately processes the CO with OPC as required by Bulletin 3.5 and BGS’ Contracting Plan.

  • Review Process A/E's Work Product will be reviewed by County under its applicable technical requirements and procedures, as follows: