Appeal No. EAT/900/92
	I N T E R N A L

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 18 February 1994

	Before

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

	MISS J W COLLERSON

	MS S R CORBY

MR M K BUSSUE	APPELLANT

(1)MR T INGHAM (2)BUZZ FM LTD	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

	PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	Ms S HARRIJUN
(OF COUNSEL)
Messrs Tyndallwoods &
Millichip
Solicitors
1st Floor, Albany House
Hurst Street
China Town
Birmingham B54BD

	

	JUDGE LEVY QC:  For two years or more, Mr M K Bussue worked as a Presenter on Buzz FM, a radio station in Birmingham.  He ceased working for the Company and he brought proceedings for a declaration that he was unfairly dismissed.  There was a hearing before an Industrial Tribunal at Birmingham on 11 September 1992, when the unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that Mr Bussue was not an employee either of the individual Respondent or the other Respondent Buzz FM Ltd, the name of the Company.

	Ms Harrijun, who appears for Mr Bussue in the ex parte hearing of his appeal, submits solidly that there are grounds for appeal in that the Full Reasons of the Tribunal insufficiently set out the points made for Mr Bussue on the application and she points to some documents indicating the position of an employee rather than a self-employed person.  We asked for, and she showed us, a letter in evidence below which was written by Accountants for Mr Bussue shortly after his work as a presenter started.  The letter reads:
"We act as accountants for the above individual who works as a presenter on Buzz FM. 

Mr Bussue is self-employed and is also registered for VAT.  He is thus liable to render invoices for work done and charge VAT on the value of such work.  This procedure applies to payments already made to Mr Bussue and to future payments.

Mr Bussue will provide you with the necessary VAT invoices which your accounts department can use to reclaim the VAT so charged.  Please contact me should you wish any further clarification."
	The letter was acted on thereafter by the Respondent and it is something which obviously played a determinant part in the decision of the Tribunal.  In paragraph 3 of their decision they say:
"During the course of the evidence the tribunal heard details of the kind of work which the applicant was doing for the company, the way he received his instructions and the manner in which he was allowed free reign himself in the way he did his job.  The unanimous decision of the tribunal, taking into account the facts which ran over a period of two years was that the applicant never became an employee of the company and that his contractual relationship with the company was one which provided for services rather than a contract of service."
	Whilst we accept the submission of Miss Harrijun that the Tribunal's Reasons could have been elongated, we are not satisfied that there is a point of law, or a mistake on the facts, or a perverse decision by the Tribunal when they held that Mr Bussue was not an employee of the Respondent to his application.  This Accountants' letter puts his position
viz-a-viz the company in a manner entirely consistent with which the decision is entirely consistent.

	We do not think that this appeal has any prospects of success and, in the circumstances, we propose, while thanking Miss Harrijun for her submissions, to dismiss the appeal.