MBO teacher fired because of 'disrupted employment relationship'
Paula van Manen, the secondary vocational education teacher who published a book last autumn about a radical educational innovation at Roc Nijmegen, will lose her job. The Nijmegen subdistrict court gives the school board permission to fire the teacher with effect from 1 October because of a 'disrupted employment relationship'.
Image: Cover cutout, publisher Scriptum
Van Manen, who has been suspended since the beginning of December 2019 and is forced to sit at home, indicated during the three-week session that he would very much like to return to work. Her employer stated that he would not see any way back. In the pronunciation, which the parties involved received today, the judge ruled that the 'employment relationship between the parties has been permanently disrupted'.
A requested 'fair compensation' of 90 euros to Van Manen for immaterial damage, among other things, was rejected by the court. However, the lecturer is entitled to the statutory transition payment. Van Manen refers to her lawyer Wouter Pors for comment, who calls the ruling "very disappointing". He could not say this afternoon whether he will appeal on behalf of his client. influence.
Introduction
In October last year, Van Manen published an anonymous book about the daily struggles surrounding the introduction of an educational innovation - personalized education - in her pedagogical training. Last January came outwards that she had been suspended the month before, after which she received many statements of support via social media, among other things. Van Manen challenged a series of suspensions - partly with success. A mediation process was unsuccessful. Finally, last spring, the school board filed a petition with the court to terminate the contract.
Of the three grounds put forward by the ROC board for dismissal, the court found only the 'disturbed employment relationship' to be serious enough. Van Manen's functioning as a teacher is not in question. What she is charged with is that with her publication she acted contrary to the 'discretion and loyalty' that, according to the judge, should be expected of her as an employee. At the same time, that in itself is not 'for now' a reason for dismissal, according to the verdict.
