As a co-determination council or committee, you represent the students or your colleagues at your institution by reviewing policies or proposing new policies. Sometimes your executives will agree with you right away, and you’ll come to an agreement together without too much negotiation. Sometimes, however, this is not the case. At such times, you are faced with a choice: Do you stay committed to your goal, or do you let it go? Policy priorities, maintaining your working relationship with your executive, the rights you can rely on, and more factors can inform this choice. There are also different ways to disagree with your executive. For example, there is a difference between a disagreement and a formal dispute. This page provides a starting point for thinking about (potential) conflicts. This guide is explicitly not about the considerations you make about whether or not to escalate. We have a separate guide on that.
Responsible escalation
Once you have decided to raise the disagreement, the question of how to do so remains. Because on the one hand, you do want to clearly make your point and achieve your goal. While on the other hand, you want to make sure that it doesn’t hurt your relationship with the board (at least not too much). The best strategy will depend on the specific situation at your institution. We share some general advice below.
First of all, it is important to realize that a disagreement is not immediately a serious conflict and does not necessarily have to lead to any legal dispute. Formally, we are not talking about a dispute (NL: Geschil) until you enter a formal/legal procedure. You can find more about dispute procedures here. In theory, anything you disagree about with your executives could be called a disagreement, even if you both consider it totally unimportant. As such, it’s important to distinguish between different types of disagreement.
To get a handle on this: when we have disagreements/conflicts we talk about the escalation ladder. Think of it as a ladder on which each step is a more severe measure to influence or pressure your executive to agree to your proposals. The bottom step of the ladder is nearly always a conversation with your executive, and the ladder may (for example) end in a formal dispute. It is advisable to be clear at all times about your wishes and any steps you are going to take on that “escalation” ladder. If you start a formal dispute before you have raised something with your executive, you have not given them the opportunity to resolve it in a less onerous way. Do not start making threats before you have had an open conversation and do not escalate before you have threatened to do so. This way, you ensure that executives know what they can expect from you. As a rule, this ensures that you get your way faster and that any relationship damage is limited.
In addition to escalating incrementally and communicating clearly, it is important to ensure that the conflict does not become personal. Try to limit disagreements and conflicts as much as possible to the topic the conflict is about. You want to prevent anger or friction from being seen as a characteristic of you or your relationship rather than a result of disagreement. This will keep it from leading to a disturbed relationship and increase your chances of being taken seriously. Therefore, try not to “play the man”, but focus on the choices being made. It can help, for example, to have a friendly chat before the meeting and not let any anger come out until the topic of conflict comes up.
If possible, try to join forces with other levels of co-determination and/or other interest groups such as associations, unions, etc. This will show that your position has broader support. Moreover, in advanced conflicts it can help to have allies who have different rights than your committee or council. This is because then you have more legal options if it should come to a formal dispute.
Finally, make sure you have a good understanding of your escalation options. That means knowing which formal routes you can take under the law, more on this in this guide. But it is also good to look at informal options. For example, consider going to the institution’s newspaper to draw attention to the issue and put pressure on your executive. Again, be aware of the risks involved. An article cannot be taken back, and sometimes executives become more stubborn with media attention. The newspaper may also choose to describe the situation in a way that does not benefit you.
The time frame of the escalation ladder: deadlines
While the escalation ladder is a good way to escalate responsibly, this framework also has drawbacks. One such disadvantage is that this process can take a lot longer than direct escalation. If there are hard deadlines, it is the responsibility of the institution to make sure that enough time is available. For example, if you disagree about a budget that needs to be approved on time then it is up to the dean/executive board to have the necessary documents delivered on time and to start the conversation with you on time. If they don’t then it is by no means unreasonable to give negative advice or withhold consent.
It also sometimes happens that executives do not fulfill their duties to co-determination bodies. In such cases, it is often best to start by talking to them. After all, even executives sometimes make mistakes and, unfortunately, they may not always be aware of their obligations. Unfortunately, in order to protect the rights of co-determination bodies, you sometimes have to take legal action. In such cases you may be bound to deadlines that do not allow you to carefully follow the steps of the escalation ladder. For example, workers councils must file an objection with the Ondernemingskamer in Amsterdam within one month if their advisory right is not respected. If this is the case, then you will have to set aside the escalation ladder and move directly to legal action. It is not odd or unreasonable to do so. After all, you have no choice; that’s just the way the law is. In these cases, it is especially important to maintain good contact with your executive. Make sure that they know quickly and well what deadline you are facing and what they must do to make legal action unnecessary. It may take time for them to make arrangements. So, it is important (if possible) to do as much as you can to make sure they have that time.
Another relevant deadline often has to do with the specific file. Advice and Consent files often need to be completed by a certain deadline. For example, faculty boards often have a deadline to finish and present the new OER to the Executive Board, the budget must be finished before the end of the year, and new regulations for numerus-fixus studies must be submitted to the Ministry of Education Culture and Science before a certain time. In these cases, there may not be enough time to slowly climb up the escalation ladder either. These deadlines are also difficult for your executive, the closer to the deadline, the more pressure they may feel to agree to the demands of the co-determination. On the other hand, whole new demands just before these deadlines are often doomed to fail. So, plan well!
There is also an advantage to these kinds of deadlines. Because you are actually forced to act quickly, you can settle a disagreement quickly and you can (threaten to) escalate more easily without being blamed.
The time frame of the escalation ladder: the term
Another disadvantage of the longer time frame of the escalation ladder is that it that your term may end while you are still working through the steps. If you stop your co-determination work before you have been able/needed to take the tougher steps in the escalation ladder, then it is up to your successors to continue that process. It is by no means a given that they will actually do so. The arrival of a new cohort is often an opportunity as a council or committee to start the relationship with the executive with a clean slate. The new cohort will also have less experience with co-determination work and the escalation ladder. Moreover, it is quite possible (depending on the subject) that the new group will have a different view of the content of the file in question than the old council or committee. It is therefore a well-known trick for executives to delay a decision until a new council or committee takes office.
If the new council does want to continue the escalation process, it may still be difficult to do so properly. After all, it is important to go through the steps carefully. As a new council/committee, you have not been present at the previous steps. Moreover, it can be daunting to instigate conflict with an executive when you are new. To remove these kinds of barriers, it is important that your successors are well trained on conflict issues. Ensure a strong transfer, keep tight records and be available for questions even after your term.
By doing so, you make it easier for the new council to continue your hard work and not start at the very bottom of the escalation ladder again. Still, we advise you to avoid prolonging a conflict if at all possible. After all, it also saves the new council from having to spend time on “a conflict of their predecessors”.