Consternation and distrust among science employees threatened with dismissal

Four engineers who design and modify devices that beta scientists need for their research. They have specific expertise in the field of mechanics, electronics and IT, among other things. The four are part of a sub-department of the instrument-maker workshop that employs six people. It is now being reorganised.

The group is angry. Employees, who prefer not to appear with their names in print, say they are completely surprised by the decision. They fear that the faculty board has been looking for a way to get rid of “difficult” and “critical” employees.

According to faculty director Klaas Druijf, this is not the case. Careful research shows that there is less work for the department, he says. For this reason, a different method has now been chosen.

Frustration
In the autumn of 2020, the engineers complained about the situation in the instrument-maker workshop in a letter to the faculty council and the faculty board itself. They now feel that this step had turned the council and board against them.

The letter, which was also signed by a large number of other employees of the instrument-maker workshop, expressed years of frustration about the lack of a manager who would be able to develop a vision and to communicate with professors and experts at a high level.

Moreover, because their number shrank after positions were left vacant, the engineers wondered whether there might be a “creeping reorganization”.

Tough nuts to crack
Partly as a result of the letter, faculty director Klaas Druijf hired an organization agency last year to take a closer look at the situation in the instrument-maker workshop. A total of eighteen employees work there. In addition to the engineers, these include employees who are involved in making glassware and maintaining appliances.

The research agency cracked some tough nuts, including about the sometimes unprofessional working method within the department and about the mutual tensions. Nevertheless, the engineering staff were happy with the research report.

For example, the research agency explicitly stated that the instrument workshop had a right to exist and that the available technical knowledge was “a valuable starting point” for the future of the instrument-maker workshop. Their expectation was that, finally, a competent and unifying manager would be appointed to solve the problems.

Unexpected blow
The fact that the faculty board, after an additional investigation by an interim manager, came to the conclusion that the engineering arm should be reorganized and that there is no more work for four engineers, therefore came as an unexpected blow.

The employees cannot reconcile this outcome with the earlier research report. “We now have the feeling that we are being punished for our critical attitude.”

A nota for the faculty council explains why the board has come to its decision. Scientists are apparently buying their necessary equipment on the commercial market more and more. Moreover, research groups have increasingly developed their own research resources. The fact that the engineers have less work would also be evident from calculations of the number of hours they work on projects.

Above all, the faculty sees its researchers need better advice on how they can best develop and maintain their equipment. According to the faculty board, 2 FTEs are sufficient for this ‘manager’s position’. There is no room for four engineers.

Denouncing of calculations
The employees involved claim that the number of assignments has remained constant in recent years. They have also denounced the calculations in the reorganization proposal that are supposed to show that relatively few billable hours have been worked in recent years. For example, things such as long-term absences due to leave or illness would not have been taken into account.

The employees fear that this plan will ultimately affect individual researchers. According to them, they will pay more and receive less service.

Added value of interaction
According to Professor of Catalysis and Materials for Sustainable Energy Petra de Jongh, the drawing and design expertise of the engineers is essential for science researchers. According to her, in many cases, the equipment that her research group needs is not commercially available.

“As a scientist, you do things that have never been done before. You often need something that doesn’t exist yet and is therefore not for sale. Or – and this is very common – you want a device or setup to do something special that is not part of the standard functions. We often have this designed and made by the instrument makers.

“In addition, the direct interactions with the people there has great added value. For us as researchers, it is very nice when a solution can be found quickly.”

De Jongh says she is therefore very concerned about the developments in the instrument-maker workshop. At the same time, she does not want to make any statements about the need for adjustments in the organization of the department.

“It goes without saying that as an institution you look at whether things can be done more efficiently or be improved. In any case, it is of the utmost importance to us as researchers that the unique expertise of the designers and drauftspeople is retained within the faculty, and that it remains easily accessible.”

Harsh reality
Faculty director Klaas Druijf thinks he can reassure De Jongh. “We will continue to effectively support our researchers. In the reorganization plan, everyone can read how we will continue to do this with the instrument-maker workshop. This is based on careful considerations, after extensive research.”

Druijf emphasizes that the reorganization affects some of the employees of the instrument-maker workshop. According to him, it is not true that he would rather lose the entire instrument-maker workshop.

“In recent years, we have invested heavily in new equipment for the department and there is a new head of department. We certainly see a future for instrument making. Just not in the way the department is organized now.”

Druijf states that the organization agency particularly appreciated the technical expertise when it comes to ‘basic assignments’. The agency also advised to get a better picture of customer demand and to adjust the capacity of the instrument workshop accordingly. This was done last year with the help of a sounding board group with researchers and other customers from across the faculty.

“In my opinion, that has been a very careful process and a well-considered decision resulted from it. We have come to the conclusion that there is less and less work for some the group of engineers, especially when it comes to high-quality IT and electronics solutions. I understand that our message hits hard with the employees involved, but unfortunately it is the reality.”

According to him, the distrust of the employees involved towards the board is unjustified. Despite the findings of the research agency, Druijf does not believe that incompetent managers have been placed at the helm of the department in recent years. “These were always people who had already earned their spurs and who are now in positions with even greater responsibilities.”

Positive recommendation
The faculty board has now managed to convince the faculty council of the usefulness and necessity of the reorganization. Two weeks ago, the council gave a positive recommendation for changing the organization of the department. To the disappointment of the engineers, they had to contact council members themselves prior to the decision to express their concerns.

The faculty council did ask the faculty board to go to great lengths to help the employees involved and to consider going further than the Social Policy Framework provides for in the event of reorganizations in accordance with the collective labor agreement.

In addition, the faculty council believes that individual researchers who will need to pay more for their equipment if they can no longer go to the instrument-maker workshop should be financially compensated.

Director Klaas Druijf says he will take both proposals to heart. What the individual employees need and want will be included in the implementation plan for the reorganization. The faculty council has the right of consent to this.

He doubts whether many researchers will be forced to incur very high costs as a result of the new method. “But that’s definitely something we’ll evaluate as well.”