- The University , Employee
- 11/02/2025
Social unsafety major point of discussion in TU/e court case
Today, the hearing took place in the case of TU/e versus an employee of the Department of Applied Physics whom the university wants to dismiss. In the proceedings, the judge tried to ascertain in what way the employee experienced social unsafety and whether he still has a possible future at the university.
The employee has been with the university for more than 25 years and wants to continue working here until his retirement (in about three years). According to the university, there is no longer any mutual trust and, therefore, no basis on which to continue the employment relationship. The man – an associate professor – is still working and has never been suspended despite the labor dispute.
Social unsafety
The term social unsafety was used regularly in the court proceedings. The judge wanted to know what the parties meant by it. The employee stated that for him it mainly means taking complaints seriously and responding to them substantively. The university stated that examples of social unsafety include bullying and threats. “So your definitions of social safety differ,” the judge noted. “Maybe this is part of the reason why communication broke down.”
The associate professor quoted an email from a former vice-dean to illustrate where his feeling of unsafety came from. The quote read out was: ‘In legal proceedings, hierarchy – rather than who is right – determines who wins’. According to the professor, being right in a legal procedure can only lead to winning a dispute if people are high enough in the hierarchy. The current dean of the Department of Applied Physics – present in the room – said he didn’t identify with the quote from the former vice-dean.
Role of ombudsperson
The role of the university ombudsperson seems to be important in this case. Her name and role were mentioned several times because the employee had asked her for help in making an independent assessment of the situation and because he felt that this was socially safer. He claims that her advice was ignored by the university. The university doesn’t agree with this and says that it respects the ombudsperson and her role. The ombudsperson herself was also present in the room but couldn’t give a public response due to the confidentiality of her position.
Ruling
On 11 March – or as much earlier as possible – the judge will rule on whether the professor can stay, be transferred, or must leave. Cursor will continue to follow the case.
Discussion