Bullard loses his unfair dismissal case against Avusa [EXCLUSIVE]

Bullard was fired in 2008 by the Avusa-owned Sunday newspaper after his column titled "Uncolonised Africa wouldn't know what it was missing" sent a chill down the spine of many Africans and provoked public outcry. The case then ended up in the court of arbitration of the Statutory Council, where his lawyer A Soldatos argued that his client, an Avusa employee, was unfairly dismissed.

But the arbitrator, after carefully considering both the applicant and respondent's written submissions, ruled in favour of Avusa, rejecting Bullard's claim that he was an Avusa employee, and upholding the respondent's testimony that Bullard was only an independent contractor.

Arbitrator's conclusions

The arbitrator's ruling conclusions were: "I am aware that the applicant has had a long relationship with the Sunday Times. It is more likely that the applicant himself, after such a long relationship, believed himself to be an employee.

"He did attend editorial meetings, but it is equally evident that he was not obliged to attend such meetings... but rather for the sake of editorial content.

"I am also aware that the applicant's face was used to celebrate Sunday Times' birthday, but this per se does not grant him the status of an employee, if in fact he was not an employee...

"For the reasons set out above, I find that the applicant was an independent contractor, and not an employee of respondent, Avusa Media Limited."

Relationship kicked off in 1994

The Bullard-Sunday Times relationship kicked off in 1994 when he was 'invited' by the Rosebank-based newspaper, and he began writing his Out to Lunch column in 1997, court documents presented as evidence show.

Bullard, who claimed in his written submissions to have signed a contract in 1997, said he could not recall whether this contract was merely for one year or not.

According to the document, Bullard constantly 'nagged' the newspaper to provide him with a contract, as he required a degree of security.

Bullard also argued that the contract presented was not what he desired, but he signed it because it did provide him afford security and a regular income. He said he trusted that the company would honour the true nature of the relationship and had no fear, based mainly on the termination clause, which he said offered equal protection to both parties.

And then came the fateful day...

For more:

• Bizcommunity Search: David Bullard
  
• Twitter Search: "David Bullard"
  
• Google News Search: "David Bullard" "Sunday Times"

Updated at 12.30pm on 1 June 2011.