According to the lecturer's lawyer, a socially unsafe work situation underlies the intended dismissal. "My client was unfairly accused of dysfunction in October 2020,” says De Jong. “He resisted this accusation for years, and the university actually acknowledged to him that it was unjustified in November 2022. In January 2023, there was even a proposal for a solution, but unfortunately this led to nothing, and it was at that time that TU/e stated there was now a conflict because no solution had been found. 

Ombuds communication

The dismissal procedure was already announced in December 2023. In March 2024, TU/e ​​actually filed a petition with the court to terminate the associate professor's employment contract. The university withdrew this petition at the last minute. The decision shows that the initially submitted petition included communication with the ombudsman. Notes from the court registry show that the university attempted to destroy the first petition and replace it with a new petition. Attorney De Jong: “However, the judge did not allow this."

TU/e then withdrew the original petition. The associate professor opposed this. He sees the documents that TU/e ​​wants to withdraw as evidence. According to the court, TU/e ​​is allowed to do what it did. ‘[defendant] is not followed in his position that withdrawal of the petition and/or TU/e’s conduct in the proceedings should be assessed as an abuse of rights or contrary to due process. TU/e ​​is in principle free to withdraw its petition’, according to the ruling of the subdistrict court.

Starting over

However, the judge also makes it clear that the evidence that TU/e ​​may no longer submit in the new case may still serve as evidence and that the lecturer can then submit it himself.

The judge emphasizes that both parties are responsible for their own petition and defense and that omitting something is not contrary to the law: ‘The duty to tell the truth opposes the deliberate submission of untruths, but that does not alter the fact that it is up to the parties themselves to determine which facts they base the petition on.’

According to the statement of the registry, the TU/e ​​has not properly motivated the entire course of events. “The petitioner must [...] clearly and concisely state which grounds she no longer bases her petition on, or on which facts or productions she no longer relies.” The university failed to do so. As a result, the lecturer is seriously hampered in his defense, according to the court. “This is unacceptable.”

The university then decided to withdraw the entire case and resubmit it. This in fact achieves the same result because a new petition can then be submitted.

Because the university summoned the associate professor and subsequently withdrew, the subdistrict court ruled on 18 October 2024 that the university must pay the associate professor 20,135 euros for legal costs incurred.

The university isn’t commenting due to privacy concerns. On Friday, the spokesperson did indicate that TU/e “will indeed keep pursuing the dismissal; the revised petition was sent to the judge and the defendant today.” TU/e’s ombudsman, Anna Soedira, has also been asked for a response but isn’t able to comment on the matter at this stage.

Socially unsafe work situation

Lawyer De Jong: “We are disappointed with the way in which the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board have behaved in this matter and had expected otherwise given how the rector (Silvia Lenaerts, ed.) from the Executive Board and Mariëtte Hamer from the Supervisory Board have publicly expressed themselves about socially unsafe behavior. Both say that you can contact them if you encounter social insecurity and that such reporters should also be listened to. Something that is supported by the Code for Good Governance. But they both kept their distance. My client was sent back to the faculty board to find a solution, while in our opinion that faculty board is actually at the root of the problem.”

Duty of care

The University Council has also gotten wind of the lawsuit. On behalf of the council’s HR committee, Martijn Klabbers indicates that “the University Council sees well-being and the social safety of all members of our community as one of the four top priorities. When problems arise, they must be handled with due care and attention. An important role in ensuring this safety is played by our ombudsman, who must be able to work independently and impartially and must be protected whole doing so. This is essential to our university community.”

Hjalmar Mulders, chair of the department council of the Department of Applied Physics, informs us that “as a department council, we haven’t been informed of any lawsuit (or ruling) between TU/e and an associate professor at our department. We trust that the department board will inform us about this if and when it’s appropriate to do so.”

Solution

The employee continues to resist his dismissal, but isn’t hampered in the performance of his work in the meantime, says his attorney. “He has a fighting spirit and wants the socially unsafe work situation to be resolved. His departure, as TU/e demands, will not eliminate the social unsafety. On the contrary, it would confirm its very existence. I think it’s admirable for someone to continue working every day after four years of fighting. But he studied at TU/e, completed his PhD here, and also wants to retire here. As far as he’s concerned, there’s nothing that stands in his way of doing just that, as he doesn’t feel he has a conflict with the people he works with. He enjoys his work and wants to pass on his knowledge to future generations. All that needs to happen is for the socially unsafe work situation to be resolved.”