marathon truckers' row.

The company has vowed to forge ahead with Supreme Court proceedings -- despite being warned to back off.

Today The Royal Gazette can reveal the war of words behind the looming clash.

It has been marked by an exchange of letters between the Attorney General Mr.

Walter Maddocks and tough-talking company lawyer Mr. Alan Dunch.

First Mr. Maddocks warned that Government would fight moves by the firm to go to the Supreme Court.

"I write to state that Government will resist such moves most strenuously, even at the Ex Parte hearing if possible.

"The contemplated proceedings in my considered opinion are misconceived and an abuse of the process of the Court.'' Mr. Dunch then fired back: "I am not accustomed to being accused of acting in a manner which is `misconceived' and resent the suggestion that I would advise a client to pursue a course that was `an abuse of the process of the Court.''' He concluded he had been instructed by the company to take proceedings before the Supreme Court.

"Finally, as requested I shall ensure that both your letter and a copy of this response are disclosed to the Court at the appropriate time.'' The exchanges follow Labour Minister the Hon. John Irving Pearman's decision to refer the firm's wrangle with the Bermuda Industrial Union to the Trade Disputes Tribunal, whose decisions will be legally binding.

The hearing is scheduled for July 21 at Cathedral Hall, and notice of the dispute will be in the Official Gazette today.

Bermuda Forwarders has opposed a referral to the tribunal, and announced plans to seek a Supreme Court injunction preventing it from sitting.

The dispute centres on 15 truckers who lost their jobs with the company after striking over a fired colleague.

Management say they breached contracts of employment by walking out; the BIU maintain they were unfairly dismissed.

In his letter, Mr. Maddocks tells Mr. Dunch: "I would draw your attention to the provisions of Section 16 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1966 which enacts that no relief by way of injunction can be granted against the Crown.

"For the purposes of the Act the definition of the `Crown' is enlarged so as to encompass, a Minister, Government Department and a Government Board. The ambit of this definition, it is considered, covers the Tribunal now proposed to be appointed by a Minister of the Crown.'' Mr. Maddocks goes on to say he cannot see how Bermuda Forwarders could prevent the tribunal from sitting.

He claims the dispute has "significant ramifications affecting the whole country''.

Another part of the letter reads: "The Chief Justice expressed the view in the recent legal proceedings between the Government and the BIU that there was now peace in the realm, and I sincerely hope that your client company can see its way to maintaining that peace.'' Mr. Maddocks urges Mr. Dunch to reconsider, and warns the court may refuse to hear the matter before the tribunal has sat.

Replying, Mr. Dunch said he was disturbed by the content and tone of Mr.

Maddocks' letter.

He went on: "The first three paragraphs of page two of your letter are incredible in the sense that they fly in the face of all representations which were made to me personally (as Counsel for Bermuda Forwarders) by both the Minister and the Premier.''