DECEMBER NEVERTHELESS GAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE TWO HEADS OF DEPARTMENT CONCERNED WERE IN AGREEMENT OVER THE APPLICANT'S NEW POSTING .
FURTHERMORE, DURING THIS INITIAL PERIOD MARKED BY THE ABSENCE OF WELL-DEFINED PROGRAMMES OF A PRECISE STRUCTURE, IT APPEARS THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRE USUALLY ALLOWED THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENT CONSIDERABLE LIBERTY IN THE CHOICE OF THEIR COLLEAGUES .
THIS IS SHOWN IN PARTICULAR BY THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT'S MOVE TO THE PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT WAS NEVER THE SUBJECT OF A WRITTEN DECISION AND THAT THE EXACT DATE CANNOT EVEN BE ESTABLISHED FROM THE DOCUMENTS IN HIS FILE, COPIOUS THOUGH THEY ARE .
IN VIEW OF SUCH AN UNORTHODOX PRACTICE THE APPLICANT CANNOT BE CRITICIZED FOR ADDRESSING HIS REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO THE PERSON WHOM HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN REGARDING DE FACTO AS HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR .
MOREOVER, THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT THAT MR LAURENT WAS ALSO AWARE OF THE MISSION IN QUESTION .
THIS BEING SO, IT IS CLEAR, THAT THE FACTS REFERRED TO BY THE DEFENDANT ARE INCAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST THE APPLICANT .
D - THE APPLICANT'S DELAY IN CARRYING OUT WORK ON THE DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN PHYSICAL CONSTANTS
P.603
THE DEFENDANT CRITICIZES THE APPLICANT FOR HIS DELAY IN CARRYING OUT THE TASKS ENTRUSTED TO HIM AND HIS COLLEAGUES KUHLBOERSCH AND VAN ALMKERK IN THE SPRING OF 1962, WHICH CONSISTED OF DETERMINING CERTAIN PHYSICAL CONSTANTS .
TO SUPPORT THIS CRITICISM THE DEFENDANT REFERS IN PARTICULAR TO ALLEGED ' EQUIVOCATION ', WHICH RESULTED IN THE LOSS OF TWO MONTHS .
IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FILE AND FROM THE DEFENDANT'S ACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN PARTICULAR THAT THIS ' EQUIVOCATION ' TOOK THE FORM OF OBJECTIONS BY THE APPLICANT, BOTH IN HIS NAME AND IN THOSE OF HIS COLLEAGUES, AS TO THE ARRANGEMENT, METHOD AND ALLOCATION OF THE WORK CONCERNED . IT IS UNIMPORTANT WHETHER OR NOT THESE OBJECTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW, SINCE IN ANY CASE THE DEFENDANT'S ALLEGATIONS REVEAL A SERIOUS ERROR OF PRINCIPLE .
IN FACT IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT A RESEARCH WORKER HAS THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN DETAILED SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ADVISABILITY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF WORK FALLING WITHIN HIS SPECIAL FIELD, SO LONG AS PRECISE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE NOT MARKED THE END OF THE PERIOD OF DISCUSSION .
CONSEQUENTLY, ASSUMING THAT THE ' EQUIVOCATION ' REFERRED TO BY THE DEFENDANT WAS A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION, IT COULD ONLY BE THAT OF THE SUPERIORS WHO ALLOWED THAT PERIOD TO GO ON FOR AN UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME .
FURTHERMORE MR EULER, A MEMBER OF THE CONSOLO COMMITTEE, STATED IN HIS EVIDENCE THAT THE ' DELAY ' IMPUTED TO THE APPLICANT WAS QUITE INSIGNIFICANT IN COMPARISON WITH MANY OF THE OTHER DELAYS WHICH HAD AFFECTED THE WORK OF EURATOM .
TAKEN TOGETHER, THESE CONSIDERATIONS DEMONSTRATE THAT ONCE AGAIN THE FACTS PROVED ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE OPINION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD .
3 . CONCLUSIONS
IT FOLLOWS FROM THE