The forty-four MD/PhD candidates at the UMCG, who wanted to be recognised as employees rather than students, were indeed in an employment relationship with the UMCG. However, only those who were still employed after January 1, 2020 are entitled to a retroactive employment contract.
This was the recommendation by the advocate general to the Supreme Court last week in the case that the MD/PhD candidates have been pursuing against the UMCG since 2018. The MD/PhDs, who alternate between working on their doctoral research and completing their medical studies, were hired as part of the PhD Scholarship Experiment.
The experiment allowed people who previously received employment contracts to be given student status instead. However, the scholarship they received was significantly lower than the salary of their colleagues. Additionally, they missed out on holiday pay and year-end bonuses, and they did not accrue any pension.
The MD/PhDs felt this was unfair as they were doing the same work as people hired outside the experiment before 2016 and after 2018. Although the Groningen District Court dismissed their arguments, the Leeuwarden Court of Appeal agreed with them. The UMCG then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Civil service law
The advocate general now advises the Supreme Court to partially overturn the Court of Appeal’s conclusion. The Court of Appeal ruled that the MD/PhDs between 2016 and 2018 were indeed entitled to an employment contract. But the advocate general argues that this was not possible because the UMCG was still under public service law at that time and could only have appointed them as civil servants, not as regular employees.
For the period after January 1, 2020, the situation is different. From that date onward, civil law applied to university medical centres and universities. Therefore, the hospital could have indeed offered them a regular employment contract. As a result, the Court of Appeal was correct in concluding that the MD/PhDs had an employment relationship with the UMCG for that period, entitling them to retroactive compensation for lost income.
Aftertaste
However, the advocate general is not satisfied with his own conclusions. The student PhD candidates had already tried in 2019 to secure a civil service appointment through the administrative court, but this claim was dismissed because the UG, instead of the UMCG, was deemed responsible. The student PhD candidates then turned to the subdistrict court.
This makes the case in the Supreme Court ‘unsatisfactory’, the advocate general writes. ‘It has the characteristics of a windmill fight […] and leaves a legal aftertaste, as the agreements with the scholarship PhD candidates appear to have been made in violation of the law.’
The advocate general’s recommendation carries significant weight. The Supreme Court can now decide to adopt his conclusions as its ruling. A decision will likely follow by the end of this year.
1,500 student PhD candidates
The case could have significant repercussions. This case only concerns 44 MD/PhD candidates, but in total, the UMCG and UG hired 1,500 student PhD candidates under the experiment. These scholarship PhD candidates have also been protesting against unequal treatment for years. This was a major reason why former education minister Robbert Dijkgraaf decided, in May 2022, not to extend the experiment.
The Dutch PhD candidates network PNN has responded positively to the conclusion. ‘The advocate general agrees with the earlier conclusion of the Court that MD/PhDs meet the conditions of an employment relationship. At PNN, we have long been convinced of this’, says chair Benthe van Wanrooij. ‘And we are very happy that the MD/PhDs have gone through this process.’
Last year, PNN announced that it was exploring the possibilities for a lawsuit on behalf of other scholarship PhD candidates hired under the experiment. Nearly a hundred scholarship PhD candidates expressed interest in participating. However, because the UMCG appealed to the Supreme Court, they put the case on hold.
But no longer, says Van Wanrooij. ‘With this recommendation, we are again positive about our chances and will certainly pursue it further.’