Unions continue to stress baseline measurement, contact point and assessments

After reading the Social Safety Change Management Plan of TU Delft, the FNV, AOb and CNV unions concluded that it lacks important sections, which they expressed in the meeting on 24 June. They had sent a letter to the Executive Board previously about the three points concerned.

“Do a baseline measurement,” began chair Fred Veer. That does not have to be difficult, in his opinion. “Send all employees a letter with three simple questions and a reply envelope: have you experienced social unsafety yourself, do you know of other people who have experienced that, do you know managers who have created social unsafety?” Then this survey should be repeated every two years ‘until the numbers have reached zero’.

‘Medmon unsuitable’

According to Veer, the Employee monitor (Medmon) conducted by TU Delft in 2017, 2020 and 2024 is unsuitable as a baseline measurement, because the answers can be ‘traced back to the individual, certainly in small departments’. “There is so much mistrust that many employees will not complete the questionnaire, even though they should. The proof can be found in the outcomes of the questionnaire of the Labour Inspectorate. The answers are very different.”

Board member Marien van der Meer said that she would consider this point, even though she believes the Medmon cannot be traced back to individual people. “Small teams are taken into account,” she confirmed. But according to Veer, that is insufficient: “Employees don’t know it, don’t believe it and are immersed in a culture of fear. I know enough colleagues who refuse to fill out the Medmon for that reason.”

‘You can send out a letter saying that you are sorry, but how does that benefit victims?’

Van der Meer pointed out that studies like Medmon ‘are used throughout the entire sector,’ which would allow mutual comparison. “In addition, we are now asking the entire organisation for action plans. They reflect what needs to be done in specific departments.”

Person A

The unions keep insisting, though, that ‘victims feel they are not being heard, not even four months after the date’ (the report of the Education Inspectorate was published on 1 March). “You can send out a letter saying that you are sorry, but how does that benefit victims?” asked Veer. So, he repeated his second point, namely that ‘there must be an independent contact point, with an independent committee and an employment lawyer who can judge whether the manager has failed in his of her duties.’

That step must also ensure that the perpetrators suffer the consequences. Veer referred to a recent study examining a professor in Leiden – named by him consistently as ‘person A’ – as a good example. “How many persons A are there at TU Delft, perhaps the entire alphabet is represented. We will only know after investigating. Uncover what went wrong down to the smallest details and get rid of them.”

According to Van der Meer action is taken when notifications are received. “It is good that people know where they can turn if something is wrong. The Inspectorate’s report covered 148 notifications. We are very sorry about that. While we have repeated our regrets many times, I understand that the suffering is not alleviated by that alone.”

Trust

Van der Meer found it to be ‘a relevant point’ that people must be able to notify complaints externally, and she pointed out that people can turn to the Integrity Office. She also addressed prevention. “How can we invest in leadership training, learning to give and receive feedback? We expect that it will take a few years to get it right.”

‘If you keep saying there is no trust, we cannot progress’

“We are asking for clarity for the victims,” responded Veer. “Can people report a case from 10 years ago somewhere? And ex-employees? I don’t think that there is enough trust at the moment about going to the Integrity Office.”

“If you keep saying there is no trust, we cannot progress,” responded Van der Meer. “So many people are working on the Plan for Change, including externally. We ensure that we send monthly updates. The Minister has spoken with the Supervisory Board four times. We must trust that this will shift in the right direction.”

Assessments

For the unions, paying attention to independent assessments of new and existing employees, including from new Executive Board members, is their third point. That is relevant now that vice-rector Rob Mudde has announced his departure. Van der Meer said, “I heard that as well. Paying attention to recruitment and selection is relevant.” According to HR director Annemieke Zonneveld, who was also at the meeting, serious attention is being paid to assessments in the Plan for Change. “There is already a proposal for how that will work.”

• Update 28-6-2024, 13:30 PM:

In the first version of this article, there was the quote that Marien van der Meer said the Minister has spoken with the Executive Board four times. That should be: “The Minister has spoken with the Supervisory Board four times”. That is how it is in the text now.