Hi Zerina

There is no legal reason why the company cannot designate you as an authorised representative. It is standard practice in my experience to have some form of internal document that sets out the levels of authority of various people or grades including who can make binding agreements such as job offers or supplier contracts. I have worked in organisations where all job offers etc were made by HR and I have also worked for companies where job offers came from the line manager, although HR drafted the documents. In my current role, offer letters and anything to do with salaries or other terms and conditions are signed by the line manager and countersigned by me, which is my preferred option.

Your General Counsel sounds like a bit of a control freak. If the current position is genuinely that you can't sign anything, I'd work on building trust and credibility and then present a plan for you to be given sign-off authority for specific types of expenditure commitment, e.g. a sensible amount for recruitment, training and OH expenditure (if these are your budgets), no job offers to be issued without passing by you - you will find out what you need for this particular role.

Another tack to take: are you in a stand-alone role? If so, can you have a look through the HR files to see what your predecessor signed?

Hi Zerina
I had to smile reading your post. In many companies lawyers and general counsels are notoriously conservative animals. At the extreme, if you apply their advice, no manager would be able to give legitimate (legally binding) operations instructions to their staff without the approval in writing of the MD.
This sounds more like a cultural thing to me, and you might want to explore the question urther with your boss what limits they think should exist within your company on who can sign what (leave requests, expense claims). One area that helps people to understand the wuestion is "who can sign off the instructions for the monthly payroll to be actioned, and what supporting documents need to be prepared to enable this to happen"?

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

Fully agree with Elizabeth.
In one of my jobs, the GM was a control freak to the degree that it presented problems (large international group) . He insisted on 4 levels of signture for every document he signed. In practice this meant no-one, including himself, checked anything, because there were so many people who were supposed to be checking it that no-one really botherd to do it
Under instructions from head office we inserted into his signature book a resignation letter, which he duly signed..... His boss then called him to say he was upset about him leaving the company and would he come and discuss it please. The letter was, of course, torn up but the point was made.
Unbelievable as it may seem, this is a true story

In reply to Ray:

Thank you both so much, you are absolutely right! Some people like to control everything and they think that they have all knowledge in the world. You both made my day!

In reply to Zerina:

I'd be inclined to mention that as I am the HR person employed by the company which - by default authorised me to carry out reasonable duties as bound by my employment contract, then there should be a presumption that it would include being allowed to sign letters I'd written. That assumes you are not a secretary??

In reply to Zerina:

Whilst I agree with colleagues - there is nothing of course against an organisation limiting who can commit an organisation to legally binding agreements (including contracts of employment) to who ever it likes - including very few individuals. Whilst we may all have views on this there are some reasons why it might be sensible and part of a tight but necessary control system.

In reply to Keith:

Useful also to remember that contactually binding agreements are entered into every day when managers talk to their staff. A signed piece of paper is simply a mutually convenient way of recording this agreement for the avoidance of any doubt, and is in no way necessary for a contract to have been concluded. Indeed many tribunal cases concern oral agreements which can clearly be demonstrated to exist....

In reply to Ray:

The funny thing is that this was only a leavers letter! Just stating last day on employment and number of days of annual leave left! I guess when you have people with legal background they feel that they know it all. I love this forum and its nice to feel supported so thank you all so much!

In reply to Ray:

Thank you for sharing Ray and for making me laugh :-)

In reply to Zerina:

Sometimes if we don't laugh, we cry !

In reply to Ray:

Indeed but that doesn't stop many organisations having at the bottom of their email signatures a line along the lines of "The author has no authority to commit the organisation to any agreement or contractually binding service".

You have a huge eye roll from me! I have never come across this and I have worked for some big names and SME's. I would think of a project that requires everyone in your company to have a signed letter that falls under that remit, plonk them all on her desk and say "there you go love... fill ya boots! do you need a pen?" :)

Apologies I am very grumpy today.

In reply to Nicola:

Hahahah thanks Nicola :-). i was very grumpy too but my mood lifted up as i got lots of support on this forum and now i don't feel alone anymore. I honestly really dislike control freaks and i have never came across this myself that is why i asked if this was normal!!! Happy Friday!

In reply to Nicola:

You might need to click on the image

In reply to Zerina:

Apart from being a control freak I would suggest they are not a very good lawyer. Perhaps that is why they became a General Counsel
What is needed is a proper review of authority levels and a new clarity