Earlier this year, the Labour Inspectorate visited UT on several occasions. The visits followed an earlier extensive investigation into ‘psychosocial workload’ at Dutch universities. In its own report, UT was instructed to systematically identify the underlying causes of workload and inappropriate behaviour.
Three violations
In its latest letter, dated 20 July, the Labour Inspectorate issued UT with three warnings regarding what it considers breaches of legislation.
The first concerns UT’s insufficient understanding of the underlying causes of inappropriate behaviour. According to the Labour Inspectorate, UT does consider leadership and leadership style as risk factors. However, the university is said to have inadequate insight into the other risk factors used by the inspectorate, seven in total, including staff composition as well as social norms and rules.
The Labour Inspectorate also states that UT falls short when it comes to evaluating measures aimed at addressing both workload and inappropriate behaviour. In both cases, the inspectorate acknowledges that UT has implemented various initiatives, such as training courses, leadership programmes, and wellbeing weeks. At the same time, the Labour Inspectorate notes: ‘The measures you are already taking are not yet being evaluated for their effectiveness. As a result, there is currently no insight into the effectiveness of the measures already implemented.’
The warnings are not merely symbolic. UT has been given nine months to address the first violation, namely the lack of insight into risk factors. For the other two violations, the university has eighteen months to comply. Failure to do so could result in the Labour Inspectorate drawing up a penalty report.
‘Leadership requires ongoing attention’
The Labour Inspectorate’s findings are not solely critical. The watchdog states that UT is meeting a number of statutory obligations, including the identification of workload issues and the associated risk assessment.
However, one final observation remains. The Labour Inspectorate notes differences between managers in how they approach inappropriate behaviour and workload, leading to inconsistent outcomes across the organisation. ‘Leadership remains a theme that requires attention,’ the inspectorate concludes.
Executive Board response
Responding to the Labour Inspectorate’s letter, the Executive Board writes that ‘we do not yet have a complete and systematic picture of the underlying causes and circumstances that increase the risk of internal inappropriate behaviour. Nor do we sufficiently evaluate whether measures aimed at reducing workload and inappropriate behaviour are producing the intended results.’
The Executive Board adds that it intends to strengthen its approach further. ‘We will focus on greater coherence, clear responsibilities, adequate support, and better monitoring of the impact of measures,’ the board states.
Over the coming period, UT intends to determine which university-wide follow-up actions are needed in the areas of culture and behaviour.
Social safety issue at EEMCS
In its response, the Executive Board also explicitly refers to the issue surrounding social safety within the Faculty of EEMCS, following the recent publication in Tubantia.
The board also points to the cultural assessment carried out within the faculty by investigative firm Hoffmann. ‘The findings provide the faculty board with a stronger basis for determining which follow-up actions are needed to achieve lasting improvements in culture and social safety. The faculty board is responsible for the next steps, and the Executive Board is confident that it will fulfil that responsibility.’
The board further states that it feels responsible for remaining closely involved and for supporting the faculty board, 'where necessary, with expertise, capacity, and guidance'.
Similar warnings for other universities
The Labour Inspectorate also visited other institutions and identified similar shortcomings. At TU Delft, the inspectorate found exactly the same three legal violations as at UT. The picture at TU Eindhoven is broadly comparable, although that university received four warnings.
