Judge reprimands TU over labour dispute at Architecture, which is reviewing its own conduct

TU Delft did not take seriously an Architecture Faculty employee’s complaint about an unsafe working environment, wrongly dismissed her with immediate effect in October 2025, and moreover pressured her to agree to dismissal by threatening to reclaim two years’ salary. That is what the subdistrict court in The Hague ruled in April this year.

According to the court, TU Delft thereby acted in a seriously culpable manner. The dismissal has been annulled, and TU Delft must pay the employee a severance payment of EUR 22,000. An additional compensation of almost EUR 60,000 is added to that, along with back pay. The dismissal will still take effect on 1 August 2026, because the employment relationship is considered irreparably damaged.

What preceded

Tensions began in May 2023, according to the court ruling. In an email to her manager, the employee asks to discuss the possibility of terminating her employment, and after that discussion decides not to resign. In the same period, she reported to the head of department and to HR that she felt unsafe in the workplace.

According to her, her supervisor excluded her, used her ideas without recognising her as a co-author, and undermined her position. She also reported that her supervisor belittled her, including in her dealings with students. He allegedly also said that she had only obtained her Veni grant because she uses a wheelchair.

Not taken seriously

The conversations that followed did not lead to a solution. In a meeting, HR asked the employee to substantiate her accusations before further investigation could take place. Later, the HR officer referred in correspondence to ‘unfounded accusations’. The employee responded that HR was not taking her seriously and that she had experienced the tone of the conversation as intimidating.

Shortly afterwards, the employee went on sick leave. Mediation sessions followed, as did advice from the company doctor, who initially focused on dialogue and later on cautious reintegration from home. Subsequently, an external company doctor in a second opinion advised postponing a return to work because of the employee’s health. The mediation ended in October 2024 without a solution.

Belgian versus Dutch labour law

A year later, in October 2025, TU Delft suddenly dismissed the employee with immediate effect, invoking Belgian labour law, under which the employment contract would fall because the employee lives in Belgium. Belgian labour law allows immediate dismissal under strict conditions and does not provide for continued payment during illness.

In a letter, TU Delft wrote: “Concretely and in summary, the dismissal is based on the long-running labour conflict characterised by various unfounded accusations made about your former (sic., editor’s note) supervisor, the head of department and the Dean. Our repeated requests to substantiate these allegations remained unanswered and attempts at mediation have failed. Based on these circumstances and your conduct, which underlies the conflict, further cooperation is impossible and we have decided to terminate the employment relationship.”

‘An employer must conduct its own investigation and follow up on signals carefully’

As a result of the dismissal, the employee was cut off from TU systems. In the same letter, TU Delft stated that it would reclaim nearly two years’ salary if she did not agree to the dismissal.

HR’s defensive role

In its ruling (in Dutch), the court is highly critical of how TU Delft handled the situation. According to the court, after the 2023 report the university should have conducted its own investigation into the signals of social unsafety, rather than asking the employee to first substantiate her complaints. The role of HR is also addressed. The court describes it as defensive, with insufficient follow-up questions and conclusions drawn too quickly (to the detriment of the complainant) about the nature of the complaints.

According to the court, this approach contributed to the emergence and further escalation of the conflict in the years that followed. An employer must conduct an investigation in such cases and follow up signals carefully, the court stated.

In addition, the court found that TU Delft failed to explain why Belgian law would suddenly apply to the employee’s contract. From the outset, her contract fell under the Dutch Universities Collective Labour Agreement, and TU Delft acted accordingly until October 2025. The subdistrict court also strongly condemned the way in which this (incapacitated) employee was pressured to agree to dismissal.

How does Architecture respond?

In response to questions from Delta, the Architecture Faculty speaks of a long-running conflict on which the court ruling now provides clarity. “We realise that this ruling impacts those directly involved and also other employees of TU Delft,” a spokesperson writes.

She also states that the Faculty will closely comply with what the court has determined. Furthermore, ‘the process as it unfolded will be evaluated to determine which lessons can be learned’. “This goes beyond just the Faculty or one department. We cannot go into further detail, but it should be clear that, considering good employment practice, we will do everything in our power to prevent situations like this from recurring.”

‘All those involved have been affected by this ruling and have tried to do the right thing’

She adds that lessons from the case will be incorporated into ongoing discussions about social safety and integrity within TU Delft. “Signals and reports must be taken seriously and followed up carefully, which always requires a tailored approach. From the perspective of good employment practice, it is also important to continue working on prevention and creating space to learn. One specific example of such prevention is an information guide for new employees that we recently launched, so that people joining our Faculty can properly familiarise themselves with relevant information.”

Few concrete measures

When asked about concrete measures or actions resulting from this case, the spokesperson remains general. She refers to the ‘programme on social safety and integrity’ that TU Delft initiated after the Inspectorate of Education found mismanagement in 2024. “Within our Faculty, we are translating this into tailored measures and actions where necessary. In the coming period, we will continue along the path we set last year, including offering training for managers and active bystander training. In addition, we will continue to work on targeted communication about the availability of confidential advisers and the integrity and social safety reporting point.”

When asked who will take responsibility for the qualification ‘seriously culpable conduct’ and whether the Faculty attaches consequences to this for specific individuals, the spokesperson does not give a concrete answer. She writes: “We very much regret that a long-running labour conflict has occurred.” And: “This concerns an individual case, and we want to handle privacy with care. All those involved have been affected by this ruling and have tried to do the right thing.”

Independent investigation

Delta also asked trade unionist Fred Veer to respond to the case and to the Faculty’s response. Veer is chair of the trade unions in the Local Consultation Body (which consists of the unions and the Executive Board) and chair of the Universities group of CNV that negotiates the Collective Labour Agreement (CLA). He is familiar with the case because the employee approached them in 2025 with ‘CLA-specific questions’. The unions subsequently asked the Executive Board questions about the issue concerning Belgian labour law. The ‘CLA-technical aspects’ of the court ruling are also on the agenda for the next Local Consultation, he reports. That meeting will take place on 6 July.

‘There are concerns about the scientific and administrative integrity of several individuals involved’

Veer also knows the Architecture Faculty from the inside because he works there himself, and says that colleagues from multiple departments have asked him questions about the ruling. According to him, there are concerns about the scientific and administrative integrity of several individuals involved: the manager of the dismissed employee, the (then) Dean, and the head of HR. In his view, the court’s finding of seriously culpable conduct applies to them. “The new Dean should be given the opportunity to resolve the existing problems. However, that will be considerably more successful with a team that is not tainted by this particular case.” According to Veer, they have retained little to no credibility.

Privacy of those involved

To create clarity about alleged breaches of scientific integrity, he says an independent investigation is ‘absolutely necessary’. “This serves a clear twofold purpose: either to establish actual breaches of scientific integrity and act accordingly, or to restore the name and credibility of the manager.”

According to Veer, it is up to Rector Magnificus Hester Bijl to commission such an investigation. When asked, Bijl states that she takes the court’s ruling seriously. She is not yet drawing conclusions: “At this moment, it is being considered how and in what way this will be followed up. That takes time and careful consideration, particularly because it concerns an individual case in which the privacy of those involved carries significant weight.”

She then points to the options employees have to make a report or lodge a complaint (if desired anonymously): the integrity and social safety reporting point, the committee for scientific integrity (CWI), and confidential advisers.

The Architecture Faculty states that it aligns itself with this, and does not respond to Veer’s characterisations of managers: “That is not only a matter of privacy: managers who are accused also have a right to protection and to be heard. Complaint procedures exist for that purpose. Those procedures are there for everyone, and we apply that standard consistently.”

Delta also asked the affected employee for comment. She has indicated that she will not respond.