‘The request for dissolution is granted and the employment contract is dissolved because of the employee’s culpable actions,’ the judge ruled. ‘It has not been established that the employee’s complaints about a socially unsafe work environment are justified.’

This means the employee’s demand to simply continue working at the university until retirement won’t be met. The judge found that ‘the employee’s attitude prevents any reasonable solution’. The man will nevertheless receive a severance payment.

In addition to questions as to what defines social safety, mediation proved a thorny issue in the case. The university says it offered this several times as a way to resolve the conflict. The employee indicated in court that he didn’t feel like mediation was presented to him as a voluntary option.

He did eventually want the ombuds to mediate his case, but an email reveals that the department board didn’t like this idea because it didn’t consider the ombuds as independent. In the end, there was no mediation at all between the two parties.

Appeal

On behalf of the board, university spokesperson Ivo Jongsma expresses satisfaction with the judge’s verdict. “We hope for everyone’s sake that this puts an end to this long-running case. We are particularly pleased that the judge recognizes the great efforts the department board has made in recent years to reach an appropriate and fair solution within the scope of the employee’s employment contract.”

Lennaert de Jong, attorney to the employee, responded that his client didn’t expect this verdict. “We don’t agree with the verdict. The judge didn’t give a fair representation of the situation, ignoring, for example, the urgent letter the ombuds sent on March 29, 2023.” The content of that letter isn’t public but was mentioned in the file by the judge as an email in which the ombuds expressed criticism.

All things considered, De Jong’s client will appeal the judge’s decision: “He is combative and confident that a fair verdict will be reached in the end.”