Co-determination structures and rights

We call the system of councils and committees from which students and employees speak with their executives/directors ‘the Co-Determination’ (NL: ‘De Medezeggenschap’). The rules that ‘The Co-Determination’ deals with come from the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act (WHW) (NL: “Wet op Hoger Onderwijs en Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek”). A hugely important reference work for co-determination members, but also a long and complex set of rules. In this guide, we cover the co-determination layers, the different possible co-determination systems and the role of the Student Assessor, and we’ll take a closer look at some of the exceptions.

This guide also provides an overview of all co-determination rights. For a comprehensive explanation of (the nuances of) individual rights, the “WHWatisdat!?” is a good source (for students). Furthermore, the WHW itself is of course also a good source: Chapter 9: The governance and organisation of universities and Chapter 10: The governance and organisation of universities of applied sciences. This collection of laws is only available in Dutch.

Furthermore, National Participation Helpdesk is always available for questions about rights, obligations, forms of co-determination or other cases!

The layers of co-determination
Co-determination is not one council or committee that discusses all matters at the institution – that would also be very difficult! No, employee participation is divided into three layers: the central, the de-central and the programme level. There are a few institutions where this works slightly differently; we will cover the exceptions later.

 The central level is also known as the institution, university of applied sciences, or university level. This is where the co-determination members who speak to the Executive Board about central issues such as the central budget, the institution’s plan and the quality assurance system sit. Councils at this level are often called Central Councils, University Councils or University of Applied Sciences Councils (NL: “Hogeschoolraden”).

The decentral level is sometimes also called the faculty or academy level. This is where the co-determination members sit who discuss decentral matters such as the decentralised budget and parts of the Education and Examination Regulations (TER, NL: OER) with their faculty director, the dean or the faculty board. Councils at this level are often called Decentral Councils, Faculty Councils or Academy Councils.

At the programme level are the co-determination members who discuss programme matters such as parts of the Education and Examination Regulations (TER, NL: OER) and how they are implemented with their executive/director, the programme director or the programme board. Councils at this level are called programme committees (NL: “Opleidingscommissies”).

(Undivided systems of co-determination
First of all: the different co-determination systems. This basically boils down to one choice: the divided, or the undivided council (WHW article 9.30; or WHW article 10.16a). In an undivided system, at central level there is one university council or university of applied sciences council, and at decentralised level one faculty council (also known as academy council) per faculty/academy, which includes both students and employees. In a shared system, there are 2 councils at the central and decentral level: one for students, and one for employees. The Programme Committee is always undivided. See a figure below for illustration.

The Joint Meeting (NL: “Gezamenlijke Vergadering)
What stands out is that a joint meeting (and faculty joint meeting) is also depicted. These are bodies where students and staff come together to talk to the director. Some dossiers the joint assembly has rights to, but the students and staff separately do not; at most institutions, the budget is such a dossier. Often, the joint assembly also has committees.

The difference between the systems of co-determination
The figure seems to suggest that the difference between the co-determination systems is mainly a cosmetic choice, but this is simply not true! When choosing a divided system, the Works Councils Act (NL: WOR) also applies to the university or university of applied sciences. In practice, this means that the Works Council (NL: OR) falls under the WOR, and any additional rights and obligations also apply (WHW Art. 9.30 paragraph 1a; or WHW Art. 10.16a paragraph 1a).

Student participation does remain subject to the WHW; if a shared system is chosen, the Executive Board will draw up a participation regulation that provides students with at least the rights they would have under an undivided system (WHW article 9.30 paragraph 3; or WHW article 10.16a paragraph 3).

Furthermore, the divided system means that students and staff no longer decide (together) on all matters. There is often less contact between students and staff, and there is often less sharing. However, a divided system does mean that there is more legislation to rely on as co-determination, and there are more opportunities to engage with the executive/director. It also prevents students and staff from having to ‘just fight it out’ if they disagree on a particular issue. This sometimes happens in an undivided system, where the student and staff delegates legally have a vote together only.

So there are many arguments for and against both systems. It is important to be aware of this, because the choice of a system is not fixed. This choice can be taken again each time, but not within five years since the last amendment took effect (WHW article 9.30 paragraph 2; or WHW article 10.16a paragraph 2). In the case of an undivided council, an amendment decision requires the consent of the Central Council ((WHW art. 9.33 paragraph 1f; or WHW art. 10.20 paragraph 1g) or the consent of both the Central Student Council (WHW art. 9.33 paragraph 1f; or WHW art. 10.20 paragraph 1g), and the Works Council (WHW art. 9.30 paragraph 5; or WHW art. 10.16 paragraph 5). In practice, we see very few system changes.

The Student Assessor and exceptions
In this section, we cover the role of the Student Assessor, and some exception rules that could potentially affect the participation structure at your institution.

The Student Assessor
At the head of a faculty is, in principle, one executive/director: the dean. This structure can be deviated from (and many institutions do!) by appointing a ‘multi-headed’ board (NL: “Meerhoofdig bestuur”). These individuals make the decisions together, and also all count as ‘executives/directors’ (think dean, vice-dean, education portfolio holder and the like). In the case of a multi-headed faculty board, a Student Assessor is appointed. This is a student who participates in the meetings of the faculty board, and has an ‘advisory voice’ there (WHW art. 9.12 paragraph 2; WHW art. 10.3b paragraph 4). This student also has access to all relevant documents of these meetings. At many institutions, the Student Assessor and forms of co-determination (such as, for example, the Faculty Council/Faculty Student Council) work closely together, although of course the Student Assessor is not allowed to simply share all information. Please note that the Studentassessor is not co-determination, they are technically an executive/director.

The same kind of rules apply at programme level: in the case of a multi-headed programme board, a Student Assessor is also appointed (WHW article 9.17 paragraph 2; WHW article 10.3b paragraph 4). In practice, this is a lot less common because study programmes are less likely to have a multi-member board.

Universities with only one faculty
At Universities with only one faculty, a number of exception rules apply. At such institutions, the Dean is the Rector Magnificus, and the Executive Board also fulfils the duties of the Faculty Board (WHW Art. 9.12 paragraph 3). In this case, there is a multi-headed board at the head of the faculty and therefore a Student Assessor is present.

Universities of Applied Sciences with one or no faculties
For Universities of Applied Sciences, this is not regulated in the same way. Whereas at Universities, education takes place in faculties by definition (WHW art. 9.12 paragraph 1), this is not the case at Universities of Applied Sciences. This means that it is possible for a University of Applied Sciences not to contain any faculties. In that case, there is only central co-determination and programme committees and no faculty co-determination. The Executive Board takes all decisions that do not fall to the programme boards.

If the University of Applied Sciences has only one faculty, there is both an Executive Board (and central co-determination) and Dean or Faculty Board (and faculty co-determination).

Faculties with only one programme
Faculties with only one programme are also possible. Something special is also possible here: it can be decided that the faculty co-determination takes on the function of the Programme Committee. (WHW article 9.18 paragraph 6; WHW article 10.3c paragraph 6) In this case, the faculty co-determination also takes over the rights and duties that would belong to the Programme Committee.

Universities of Applied Sciences with only one programme
It may be that a University of Applied Sciences contains only one programme (think, for example, of categorical teacher training colleges). In that case, we take two of the above rules together. In that case, the central co-determination also acts as both the decentralised co-determination and the Programme Committee.

The rights and duties of co-determination
The rest of this guide deals with the rights and obligations of co-determination. It is divided into two overarching sections: Universities and Universities of Applied Sciences. Different chapters of the WHW apply to these two types of educational institution (Chapters 9 and 10 respectively). In general, the rights are very similar between the two, but there are differences. Make sure you look at the right section on this page!

In these overarching sections, we will elaborate on the three levels: central, decentral and programme level. Especially between central/ decentral and the programme level, there can be a lot of difference in rights. Furthermore, at universities there are ‘service councils’, participation bodies attached to central services (e.g. the library, communication, finance, etc.).

We learned above that students in an undivided system have at least the rights they would have in a shared system (WHW Art. 9.30 paragraph 3; or WHW Art. 10.16a paragraph 3). In practice, this often also applies to employees; in addition, in the case of an undivided system, they are also subject to the WOR  (WHW article 9.30 paragraph 1a; or WHW article 10.16a paragraph 1a). For this reason, we have chosen not to separately discuss the rights and obligations of employee participation under the different systems.

In this guide, we do not (yet) discuss the rights arising from the WOR. However, we do have the ambition to add this in the future.

Universities
Central level:

The most well known rights:

  • Consent (WHW art. 9.33; WHW art. 9.30a; WHW art. 9.32a applies)
  • Advice (WHW art. 9.35; WHW art. 9.33a; WHW art. 9.32a applies)
  • Information (WHW art. 9.32 paragraph 5, 6)
  • Initiative (WHW art. 9.32 paragraph 2)

The less well known (but still very important!) rights:

  • Support (WHW art. 9.48 paragraph 1)
  • Training (WHW art. 9.48 pragraph 2)
  • Consultation/meeting
    • RVT (WHW art. 9.8 paragraph 2)
    • CvB (WHW art. 9.30a paragraph 5; WHW art. 9.32 paragraph 1, 2a)
  • Initiate a formal dispute (WHW art. 9.40 paragraph 1)
  • Protection (WHW art. 9.32 paragraph 9, 10)

The obscure (and still very important) rights:

  • Influence appointment CvB-members (WHW art. 9.3)
  • Nomination one RvT-member (WHW art. 9.7 paragraph 2)
  • Onboarding (sort of) (WHW art. 9.32 paragraph 5)
  • Submit a request for judgement of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (WHW art. 9.34J)

Decentral level:

  • The powers of decentral participation are largely determined by the University Council Regulations (WHW art. 9.34h)

The most well known rights:

  • Consent (WHW art. 9.37 paragraph 2; WHW art. 9.38)
  • Advice (WHW art. 9.37 paragraph 2)
  • Information (WHW art. 9.38a)
  • Initiative (WHW art. 9.38a)

The less well known (but still very important!) rights:

  • Support (WHW art. 9.48 paragraph 1, 3)
  • Training (WHW art. 9.48 paragraph 2, 3)
  • Consultation/meeting (WHW art. 9.38a)
  • Hear proposed appointment/dismissal dean/Faculty Board (WHW art. 9.13 paragraph 2)
  • Initiate a formal dispute (WHW art. 9.40 paragraph 1)

Programme level:

  • Consent (on parts of the) TER (NL: OER) (WHW art. 9.18 paragraph 1a)
  • Advice (ons parts of the) TER (NL: OER) (WHW art. 9.18 paragraph c)
  • Initiative (WHW art. 9.18 paragraph 1d, 4)
  • Consultation/meeting (WHW art. 9.18 paragraph 5)
  • Support (WHW art. 9.48 paragraph 1, 3)
  • Training (WHW art. 9.48 paragraph 2, 3)

Service councils:

  • Consent (WHW art. 9.50 paragraph 4)
  • Advice (WHW art. 9.50 paragraph 2)
  • Initiative (WHW art. 9.50 paragraph 3)

Universities of Applied Sciences
Central level:

The most well known rights:

  • Consent (WHW art. 10.16b paragraph 2, 3, 6, 7; WHW art. 10.20; WHW art. 10.21 paragraph 2; WHW 10.24 paragraph 1; WHW art. 10.19a applies)
  • Advice (WHW art 10.20a lid 1-3; WHW art. 10.19a; and WHW art. 10.23 apply)
  • Information (WHW art. 10.19 paragraph 6)
  • Initiatiative (WHW art. 10.19 paragraph 2)

The less well known (but still very important!) rights:

  • Support (WHW art. 10.39 paragraph 1)
  • Training (WHW art. 10.39 paragraph 2)
  • Consultation/meeting
    • RvT (WHW art. 10.3d paragraph 5)
    • CvB (WHW art. 10.16b paragraph 5; WHW art. 10.19 paragraph 1, 2)
  • Initiate a formal dispute (WHW art. 10.26)
  • Protection (WHW art. 10.19 paragraph 9, 10)

The obscure (and still very important) rights:

  • Nomination of one RvT-member (WHW art. 10.3d paragraph 4)
  • Influence appointment CvB-members (WHW art. 10.2 paragraph 3)
  • Hear proposed appointment/dismissal Executive Board (WHW art. 10.24 paragraph 3)
  • Onboarding (sort of) (WHW art. 10.19 paragraph 5)

Decentral level:

  • The decentral co-determination’s rights of consent and advice are largely determined by the responsibilities placed on the faculty. If the central council would have had rights over it, the devolved council now has rights over it. (WHW art. 10.25 paragraph 1)
  • Support (WHW art. 10.39 paragraph 1, 3)
  • Training (WHW art. 10.39 paragraph 2, 3)

Programmes:

  • Consent (on parts of the) TER (NL: OER) (WHW art. 10.3c paragraph 1a)
  • Advice (on parts of the) TER (NL: OER) (WHW art. 10.3c paragraph 1c)
  • Support (WHW art. 10.39 paragraph 1, 3)
  • Training (WHW art. 10.39 paragraph 2, 3)
  • Consultation/meeting (WHW art. 10.3c paragraph 5)
Download the entire document here
Scroll to Top