This is a summary of the union's arguments in the Pro-Active termination dispute, which will be handed to its members at today's meetings.

n Government had consistently shortchanged Pro-Active on the project - forcing the union to assume the role of banker to the tune of $4 million.

Government's decision to award the contract, and the union's decision to support the project, was the “direct result” of stated intentions by Government Ministers to support black economic empowerment and “redistribution of economic opportunities in Bermuda”.

Government knew that Pro-Active had a limited asset base and little access to traditional sources of credit and so its “consistent and unwavering support” of the project was an essential prerequisite for success.

Some senior civil servants and established construction industry players opposed the decision to award Pro-Active the contract and favoured Somers Construction.

Pro-Active complained for months about efforts from within the Civil Service to “sabotage” the project. While many of the complaints were made in writing to the Premier and other Ministers, and private assurances were made that they would be dealt with, Government is now publicly denying “the very existence of these complaints”.

The project was “riddled with design and engineering flaws”, inherited from the UBP Government, which cost the project millions more than the original budget and forced a settlement in February in which Government agreed to pay an additional $13 million.

Not all the money agreed to in the February settlement has been paid.

The February settlement was not a “bailout” but the outcome of a legitimate claim for $21 million. Pro-Active wrote off $8 million “in the interests of moving forward amicably”.

Senior civil servants refused to meet with Pro-Active following the February settlement, to schedule the project as events arose, as agreed. “There was not one substantive meeting of the parties since the settlement agreement.”

Senior Civil Servants ignored an order by Cabinet Secretary John Drinkwater for a June 28 meeting between the parties. “Consultants for PAMS and UAH were flown in over that weekend in order to attend the meeting which was abruptly cancelled by senior civil servants in breach of the order made by Mr. Drinkwater in the presence of the Premier.”

The contract was cancelled abruptly on August 24 following a request for a meeting to “clarify one or two things”.

The termination is unlawful and Pro-Active is sure to recover “substantial damages”.

Government has engaged in “secretive” negotiations with Somers Construction and others for the completion of the project.

Despite the fact that the BIU, through its subsidiary Union Asset Holdings, stands to lose $6.8 million if the completion bond it provided is called upon, and an additional $4 million already advanced to Pro-Active, Government continues to ignore its rights to complete the work or be consulted on how it will be completed.