ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Delegated authority (545,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Delegated authority
Total judgments found: 35

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4291


    130th Session, 2020
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    As stated in Judgment 4139, consideration 6, “[t]he Tribunal’s case law recognizes that the decision of the executive head of an organization may be communicated to the official concerned, as is common practice, by means of a letter signed by the head of human resources management (see, for example, Judgments 2836, consideration 7, 2837, consideration 4, 2871, consideration 7, 2924, consideration 5, or 3352, consideration 7). However, it must be clear from the terms of that letter, or, at least, from consideration of the documents in the file, that the decision in question was indeed taken by the executive head himself”.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 2837, 2871, 2924, 3352, 4139

    Keywords:

    decision-maker; delegated authority; final decision; notification;



  • Judgment 4283


    130th Session, 2020
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to cancel a competition in which he was a candidate.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant submits that that decision, which took the form of an e-mail sent [...] by Mr T., Head of People and Finance Operations, was taken without authority.
    The Tribunal notes that, although there can be little doubt that that e-mail, in which Mr T. stated that he was acting “[f]or the Director General and by delegation”, merely notified the complainant of an administrative decision taken beforehand, there is no evidence to show that the decision in question was formalised in any other manner, so it must be found that the competition was cancelled as a result of that e-mail. It must therefore be ascertained whether the author of the e-mail had a delegation of the power of signature authorising him to adopt such a measure.
    In this case, however, the objection raised by the complainant on that point is unwarranted. The evidence shows that, pursuant to a decision of the Principal Director of Resources [...], Mr T., in his capacity as Head of People and Finance Operations, was granted sub-delegation of authority to sign, on behalf of the Director General, “all documents that fall under his responsibilities”. Moreover, pursuant to a decision [...] on the internal organisation of the Directorate of Resources, the People and Finance Operations Unit has, among other responsibilities, the task of “ensuring the administrative management of recruitment, mobility and careers”, which, contrary to what the complainant contends in his rejoinder, clearly includes taking decisions concerning a competition such as that at issue here. Since Mr T. thus acted within the scope of his authority and, consequently, within the limits of the sub-delegation of the power of signature which he held, the plea that the author of the decision [...] lacked authority has no factual basis.

    Keywords:

    delegated authority; power of signature;



  • Judgment 4197


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for payment of overtime hours performed under the terms of an informal agreement concluded within his department.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant claims that the impugned decision was not taken by the proper authority. The Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the Acts of Delegation provided by the EPO, that the Principal Director of Human Resources had been properly delegated by the President of the Office to take such a decision.

    Keywords:

    delegated authority;



  • Judgment 4139


    128th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term contract as a result of her post having been abolished.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he argument that the signature of such decisions by the Head of the Human Resources Department was common practice at the Global Fund should not be accepted. It is a matter of principle that an illegal practice cannot become legally binding (see, for example, Judgments 1390, consideration 27, 2259, considerations 8 and 9, 2411, consideration 9, 2959, consideration 7, or 3544, consideration 14, and, for a case similar to the present case, [...] Judgment 3071, consideration 28).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1390, 2259, 2411, 2959, 3071, 3544

    Keywords:

    delegated authority; practice;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he fact, also relied on by the defendant, that the Executive Director had dismissed the complainant’s appeal against the decision of the Head of the Human Resources Department – which he could only have done by disavowing the latter and putting the organization in a delicate position – did not imply that he would necessarily have taken the same initial decision that she had.

    Keywords:

    delegated authority; executive head; internal appeal;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Although [...] section 22 of the Handbook does envisage the possibility that the Executive Director might delegate his powers, such delegation must still have been duly established. However, it must be noted that the Global Fund has not been able to produce the delegation allegedly granted to the Head of the Human Resources Department to take decisions of this kind, whereas when a complainant seriously questions the actual delegation of powers, the defendant organization is required to establish proof of their delegation (see Judgments 1185, consideration 2, 2028, consideration 8, paragraph (3), 2558, consideration 4(a), 3071, consideration 27, and 3494, considerations 16 and 17).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1185, 2028, 2558, 3071, 3494

    Keywords:

    delegated authority;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law recognizes that the decision of the executive head of an organization may be communicated to the official concerned, as is common practice, by means of a letter signed by the head of human resources management (see, for example, Judgments 2836, consideration 7, 2837, consideration 4, 2871, consideration 7, 2924, consideration 5, or 3352, consideration 7). However, it must be clear from the terms of that letter, or, at least, from consideration of the documents in the file, that the decision in question was indeed taken by the executive head himself.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 2837, 2871, 2924, 3352

    Keywords:

    delegated authority;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The Global Fund maintains [...] that the Chief of the Executive Director’s management team was involved in dealing with the complainant’s situation. However, this would not be enough to establish that the decision in question was taken by the Executive Director himself.

    Keywords:

    decision-maker; delegated authority;



  • Judgment 4080


    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant claims that the Organisation has breached its duty of care towards him following an accident at work, involving a contractor, which resulted in national judicial proceedings.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    According to its case law, the Tribunal considers that in an international organisation, a delegation of the power of signature is institutional rather than personal. It hence continues to operate after the delegator has left office and until one of his or her successors decides to withdraw it (see Judgment 3730, consideration 1). Given that decision [...] of 1 February 2009 delegating the power of signature had not been revoked by the new Director General, the decision of 28 January 2015 was lawfully signed on that basis by the Principal Director of Resources.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3730

    Keywords:

    delegated authority;



  • Judgment 4018


    126th Session, 2018
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision no longer to pay him an expatriation allowance.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The defendant organisation’s submission that this undertaking on behalf of Eurocontrol is not valid because it was not given by the Director General himself is manifestly misconceived. Apart from the fact that the executive head of international organisation is obviously not the only authority empowered to represent it in a negotiation of this kind, the issue that arises here is not whether this undertaking was legally valid, but whether it was actually given, which would explain why the clause in question was inserted in the complainant’s contract; and, as already stated, the above-mentioned emails show that it was.

    Keywords:

    delegated authority;



  • Judgment 3887


    124th Session, 2017
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him, for misconduct, with immediate effect and with reduction of pension entitlements.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The complainant’s assertion that there was a lack of duly established delegations of authority is unsubstantiated. The complainant has not provided any evidence showing that any official had acted ultra vires.

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; delegated authority;



  • Judgment 3825


    124th Session, 2017
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3565.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal specifically ordered that the written confirmation regarding the removal and destruction of materials was to be signed by the Executive Secretary personally, the signing of the confirmation could not lawfully be delegated to another person. The Commission’s submission that the Executive Secretary’s signature could be dispensed with overlooks the clear language of the order that it was obliged to execute.

    Keywords:

    delegated authority; execution of judgment;



  • Judgment 3730


    123rd Session, 2017
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contends that Eurocontrol withdrew his title and duties as Head of Section.

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    The Tribunal notes that the delegation of power of signature of 1 February 2009 was not withdrawn by the new Director General. In an international organisation, such a delegation is institutional rather than personal. It hence continues to operate after the delegator has left office and until one of his or her successors decides to withdraw it.

    Keywords:

    delegated authority;



  • Judgment 3691


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the salary deductions made following their participation in strikes.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [P]ublication is not a requirement for the lawfulness of acts of delegation unless otherwise provided by the relevant rules. It is enough that the delegation be declared and, when a complainant calls for proof that power has in fact been delegated to a specific person, it is a matter for the organisation to produce such proof (see Judgment 2028, consideration 8(3)).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028

    Keywords:

    delegated authority;



  • Judgment 3494


    120th Session, 2015
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her candidature for a position in Eurocontrol.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competence; complaint allowed; decision quashed; delegated authority;

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, in order to be valid, a delegation of authority must have some basis in the rules. Failing that, any action will be ultra vires (see, for example, Judgment 1696, under 5, and the case law cited therein)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1696

    Keywords:

    delegated authority;



  • Judgment 3352


    118th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the result of the evaluation of their job grade.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The claim that the Director Regulations and Change Management did not have the authority to act on behalf of the President is unfounded. Even without considering the document [...] which showed that the President personally took the final decision, the fact that the letters [...] stated explicitly that "[t]he President of the Office has carefully considered the unanimous opinion of the Appeals Committee concerning your appeal against the results of the evaluation of your job grade" is sufficient to show that the decision was not taken by the Director, but that he was acting merely as the designated intermediary in informing the complainants of the President’s decision, in accordance with the normal administrative practice (see Judgment 2924, under 5)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2924

    Keywords:

    delegated authority;



  • Judgment 3249


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint in which the complainant requested the establishment of a new version of his staff report.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; delegated authority; performance report;



  • Judgment 3177


    114th Session, 2013
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to refuse to promote him to grade P-5.

    Considerations 11 and 12

    Extract:

    "The complainant alleges first that the Director-General did not properly delegate the authority to make the final decision at issue. The impugned decision was signed by the Director ad interim of HRM and not the Director-General.
    This is not a question of delegation of authority. Contrary to the complainant’s arguments, the authorised decision-maker does not have to be the signatory to the final decision. In Judgment 2028, relied on by the complainant, the decision was flawed because no evidence was adduced that the person with authority had actually made the decision or properly delegated it (see Judgment 2028, under 8(3)). It is not a matter of who signed the decision, but rather who made the decision itself."

    Keywords:

    decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; general principle;



  • Judgment 2558


    101st Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4(a)

    Extract:

    According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "The defendant has not shown that the Principal Director of Personnel was competent or held a delegation of authority; it merely acknowledges in its reply 'that there is no decision signed by the President extending the complainant's probationary period'. It argues that this does not invalidate the decision to extend the probationary period in view of the absence of any obvious error in the assessment of the complainant's performance. This argument is surprising insofar as it clearly arises from a confusion between the formal requirements and the substantive requirements of an administrative decision. Whether a decision is justified or not in substance, whoever takes the decision must in all cases make sure beforehand that he has the power to do so and, if not, refer the matter to the competent authority for a decision."

    Keywords:

    competence; decision; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; formal flaw; formal requirements; lack of evidence; mistaken conclusion; organisation; organisation's duties; probationary period; reply; work appraisal;

    Consideration 4(a)

    Extract:

    According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "It is for the Organisation to prove that whoever decides to extend an official's probationary period, or to dismiss the official, is authorised to take that decision, either by virtue of a statutory provision, or by virtue of a lawful delegation by the person in whom such authority is vested under that provision (see Judgment 2028, under 8, third paragraph, and 11). [...] In the absence of any formal delegation by the President, the Tribunal concludes that the complainant's plea that the decision to extend her probationary period was taken ultra vires is well founded. This flaw will not lead it to set aside the decision in question, but it does justify compensating the complainant for any moral injury the flaw may have caused her."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028

    Keywords:

    allowance; burden of proof; competence; consequence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; iloat; lack of evidence; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 2324


    97th Session, 2004
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 10-11

    Extract:

    "[P]ursuant to Rule 5.3.01, only the Director General had authority to place the complainant on special leave with full pay [...] However, [...] it was the Director of Administration, not the Director-General, who wrote to the complainant and informed her that he was 'placing [her] on special leave with pay until further notice'. That letter contains no reference whatsoever to the Director General or to any discussions with the latter. And although, in her request for review, the complainant expressly contended that the Director of Administration had taken the decision in question, the Director-General did not say anything to the contrary in his reply. [...] That correspondence gives rise to the very strong inference that the decision was taken by the Director of Administration and not by the Director General."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Interim Staff Rule 5.3.01

    Keywords:

    competence; decision; delegated authority; evidence; executive head; special leave;



  • Judgment 2028


    90th Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal does not dispute the principle of delegation of authority (see Judgment 1386 [...]); however, when a complainant calls for proof that power has in fact been delegated to a specific person, it is a matter for the organisation to produce such proof."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1386

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; complainant; delegated authority; disclosure of evidence; evidence; general principle; organisation's duties; request by a party;



  • Judgment 1839


    86th Session, 1999
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 16-17

    Extract:

    "The complainants plead that the staff representatives having withdrawn, the [Local Salary Survey Committee] was no longer competent to act and that the organization was in breach of its duty of consulting the staff either through such a body or else, in accordance with Staff Regulation 8.1, directly. [This] plea [...] must fail. Not only did the Committee and its working party both comprising staff representatives function for many months before the survey began, but the Committee did not, as the complainants make out, cease to exist after the staff representatives had withdrawn. The [organization] repeatedly invited them to take part, and their refusal to do so did not have the effect of disqualifying the Committee or invalidating its recommendations. The methodology [of the International Civil Service Commission] provides in paragraph 6 that, though it is preferable to have representatives of both management and staff take part, the technical requirements will still be met even if one side prefers not to; so that actual participation by both sides is not a requirement. Nor was there any breach of Regulation 8.1. [The Tribunal draws an analogy between this issue and the issue considered in Judgment 1565]."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 8.1 PARAGRAPH 6, METHODOLOGY OF THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1565

    Keywords:

    case law; competence; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; delegated authority; formal requirements; icsc decision; organisation's duties; participation; qualifications; recommendation; salary; staff representative;



  • Judgment 1838


    86th Session, 1999
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 16-17

    Extract:

    "The complainants plead that the staff representatives having withdrawn, the [Local Salary Survey Committee] was no longer competent to act and that the organization was in breach of its duty of consulting the staff either through such a body or else, in accordance with Staff Regulation 8.1, directly. [This] plea [...] must fail. Not only did the Committee and its working party both comprising staff representatives function for many months before the survey began, but the Committee did not, as the complainants make out, cease to exist after the staff representatives had withdrawn. The [organization] repeatedly invited them to take part, and their refusal to do so did not have the effect of disqualifying the Committee or invalidating its recommendations. nor was there any breach of Regulation 8.1. [The Tribunal draws an analogy between this issue and the issue considered in Judgment 1565]."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 8.1
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1565

    Keywords:

    advisory body; case law; competence; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; delegated authority; organisation's duties; qualifications; recommendation; salary; staff representative;



  • Judgment 1834


    86th Session, 1999
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The complainant [pleads] that the decision to terminate [her appointment] was not 'initiated' by the Director-General, as Staff Rule 110.04 required. [I]n the context of the Staff Rule the word 'initiated' does not mean that the Director-General himself must be the first person in the administration to take any action at all; it simply requires that the action, when taken, be on the Director-General's behalf and with his prior approval."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: UNIDO STAFF RULE 110.04

    Keywords:

    competence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; organisation's duties; termination of employment;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 15.09.2021 ^ top