Dichotomy in HMR: are students allowed to vote on reorganisation?

Are students in HMR allowed to vote on reorganisation plans? The representation council has been arguing about that question. The General Union of Educational Personnel (AOb) even took legal action.

There is disagreement in the Hanze Representation Council (HMR) about the reorganisation plans of the Executive Board. During the HMR meeting with the Executive Board on March 31, the two student factions (HSV and Lijst Sterk) and the personnel faction of Onafhankelijke Realisten (the Independent Realists) voted in favour of the plans of the Executive Board for the reorganisation. Together, these three groups occupy 13 of the 18 council seats, thus forming a broad majority.

The battle may not be over yet, as AOb has dug its heels in

However, the battle may not be over yet for the Executive Board. The largest personnel faction in the council, AOb (which is tied to the nationwide education union with the same name) does not agree with the plans. During the meeting AOb even announced legal action, because in their opinion the student section does not have the right of consent in this matter.

The announcement of the legal action led to great indignation. The student factions in particular felt wronged. Throughout the entire process, they had been working very hard to come to serious results, but at the decisive moment the AOb faction apparently did not allow them to have a say. Matthijs Tuinstra of the Hanze Student Interests Association (HSV) even called AOb’s attitude childish.

If the students are not allowed to vote, the HMR majority is against the reorganisation plans

AOb refers to the HMR regulations, in which they read that only representatives of the personnel have a say in major organisational changes. The same text is recorded in the Social Charter (which describes how the Hanze should deal with reorganisations).

If they are right, that would change things, as AOb has the majority in the personnel delegation (five seats for AOb and four for Independent Realists).

This dispute is fodder for lawyers, because to a lay person’s eyes, the HMR regulations are by no means straightforward. One of the stings is in the crucial article 6.1.3, which indeed states that ‘the personnel section’ has the right of consent on ‘the determination or modification of the allocation of tasks within the staff (…) insofar as the decision is of general application to all or an entire category of personnel members’.

The personnel section has the right of consent, but does that automatically mean that the student section does NOT have that right?

No one will dispute that a change in the division of labour in Hanze management is imminent. Abolishing schools, institutes, academies and staff offices and replacing them with nine new clusters can hardly be called anything else. However, it remains to be seen whether one can regard the managers and other personnel who will be affected by this as an ‘entire category’ for whom the decision has ‘general validity’.

Lawyers will also be able to sink their teeth into things that are not written down. For example, the HMR regulations do state that the personnel section has the right of consent. But does that automatically exclude the student section? The regulations do not explicatively state that the student section does not have the right to consent. Besides, how does a judge or appeal body weigh the fact that the students were apparently under the impression that they could also participate in the decision-making process?

Peter Klomp (AOb): ‘On the crucial points, the Executive Board is very rigid’

A day after the meeting, the AOb faction is showing confidence. ‘I understand that the others were shocked by the announcement that we were going to contest the case’, says Peter Klomp, one of the five AOb members in the Hanze Representation Council. ‘But that we were considering it was clear for a while. That we were actually going to do it… yes, that was new. Also for ourselves actually, because we took that decision during the meeting.’

According to Klomp, this happened shortly after it became clear to the AOb faction that the board was not prepared to accommodate them on two important points. ‘We believe that the quartermasters must be independent, so they cannot be the envisaged directors. And the proposed top structure (the division of the Hanze organisation into nine clusters, ed.) must, as far as we are concerned, be a starting point for the coming phase, not necessarily the outcome.’ According to Klomp, the Executive Board has been lenient in many cases, but on these crucial points they are rigid.

The AOb faction is also asking the lawyer it hired to look into whether the Executive Board has dropped stitches in dealing with HMR in other areas.
What will happen if AOb is not vindicated in case of a legal dispute, Klomp does not know yet. ‘At the moment, the board charges full speed ahead. And if that should continue, I would find that sad for all Hanze personnel.’