Employers and unions are raising concerns about the inactivity of the tribunal which adjudicates the Employment Act 2000.

It was set up two years ago to hear complaints over unfair dismissal but has heard just three cases despite Government claims it was functioning fine.

Bermuda Employers? Council executive director Andrea Mowbray said: ?We have made several inquiries as to the status of the tribunal and how many cases they have heard.

?To date they have only had three decisions given out at the LAC (Labour Advisory Council).

?We are not sure what?s going on. It seems to be a mystery.?

However Home Affairs permanent secretary Robert Horton said: ?The tribunal is functioning successfully.

?Only last week the LAC were given a report on its deliberations.

?It does sit when cases are referred to it by the inspectorate.

?I do acknowledge in the early stages it was a slow process. It is functioning and there are a number of persons who have been the beneficiaries of the decisions.?

However understands from one source, who refused to be named, that Government?s labour relations officers were swamped with work and found it difficult to get the cases before the tribunal.

The source said: ?Basically they can?t get out to do the investigations they are so inundated with general complaints coming in to the labour department.

Bermuda Public Services Union general secretary Ed Ball said: ?We need to ensure the tribunal has all the tools and resources necessary to get on with adjudicating cases in a timely manner.?We don?t want backlogs typical in some other jurisdictions. We need to ensure the tribunal is able to adjudicate. They can?t do it if investigations are not sent down.?

The Employment Act 2000 came into force in March, 2002 to promote fair treatment of employers and employees, provide minimum standards, establish procedures and notice periods for termination, protect against unfair dismissal and establish an employment tribunal to hear complaints under the Act.

However the creation of the tribunal came later.

One former CableVision worker is fighting to have his day in front of the tribunal.

Melvin Turner is fighting for several thousand dollars after his contract was terminated. But now faces huge legal fees after Government ruled he must take the case to court.

Melvin Turner moved from Atlanta, Georgia in August, 2001 but was forced into a pay cut when another employee took over his job.

His pay changed from an hourly rate to a piece rate, but when his contract ended the company, with no reason given, paid him off two weeks money based on the hourly rate.

The intervention of a labour relations officer and the Bermuda Industrial Union increased that package to four week?s pay but Mr. Turner, a cable splicer, said the money should have been taken from an average of 12 week?s earnings under the Employment Act 2000. He said the BIU helped him in his case but the labour relations department have ruled Mr. Turner was a contractor after voluntarily opting for a lucrative package and therefore could not be heard at the tribunal.

But Mr. Turner said he was an employee.

He told : ?CableVision paid my payroll tax, my health insurance and my social insurance.

?Jeremy Elmas changed my pay rate and he did not offer any other choice of pay rate as an alternative.?

Home Affairs permanent secretary Robert Horton said Government had taken the decision after advice from the Attorney General?s chambers.

BIU negotiator George Scott said if Mr Turner had been on contract work then it would have been put out to bids from local contractors before Mr. Turner arrived.

?How can the AG?s chambers deem him a contract worker when it never went out to Bermudians, I don?t know,? said Mr. Scott. ?There is nothing more we can do as a union, when anything is deemed to go to the court we stand back.?

He said the act was there to sort out such disputes without causing workers to rack up huge legal fees. ?It?s a legal opinion, it isn?t the law. Anyone can give an opinion. It should go to a tribunal.?

A CableVision spokeswoman said the complaint was being handled by a labour relations officer and the company could not comment.