A headline on Tuesday incorrectly said, "Hotels and HEB clash on pensions''.

It should have said, "Hotels and BIU clash...'' Hoteliers and the BIU were at loggerheads yesterday over the issue of who should top up the flagging Hotel Pension Fund.

Both parties pointed the finger at the other when it came to deciding who should increase contributions.

At present, hoteliers contribute 35 cents and employees 20 cents an hour to employees' pensions. The BIU wants to see hotels paying more.

But yesterday -- day four of the Essential Industries Disputes Settlement Board hearing -- the Hotel Employers of Bermuda refused the demand outright.

Instead HEB lawyer Mr. Stephen Shawe proposed the opposite.

"We propose that any increase comes exclusively from employees,'' he said.

"At present the 20 5 contributions are overweighted to the detriment of the employers. Our proposal would cost the employers zero.'' BIU president Mr. Ottiwell Simmons has claimed that hotel pensions are woefully inadequate compared with Government pensions.

He said hotel pensions, which ranged between $25 and $604 a month, lagged behind Government pensions of $308.68 to $734.84 a month.

Hotel workers, he said, were disappointed with the benefits they were receiving. The majority of the 413 people who received hotel pensions picked up less than $200 a month, he claimed.

"When we look at the workers' plight compared with other workers, there is no doubt in my mind that the hotel worker is being cheated. He is owed a lot more,'' Mr. Simmons said.

Mr. Simmons rejected the idea of a "50-50'' contribution.

Mr. Shawe said the hotel pension plan was originally designed to supplement social security pensions.

Hotel workers, he claimed, received Government pensions in addition to hotel pensions.

He added that the size of a hotel worker's benefits was unrelated to salary size.

"Each worker has access to exactly the same funds,'' he said. "There is no distinction in terms of benefit levels.'' Those who retired close to the start of the pension plan which began in 1976 received less because they had contributed less, Mr. Shawe said. But those employees who had worked in the hotels longer were entitled to larger pensions.

"It is not to do with salary but to do with hours worked,'' he said. Mr.

Simmons disagreed. He argued that larger hotel pensions were not to do with length of service but whether a person worked two jobs in the hotel industry.

He added that the HEB owed hotel workers pension monies from two years during the recession when no increases were made in employers' contributions.

"There is no question in our mind that it was the employers who caused this two-year gap because of their inability to make contributions. We say they owe those contributions plus what we're owed now,'' he said.

Chairman of the five-person board Mr. Arnold Zack summed up the argument.

"Both of you want to add to the fund by the others' contributions. Both sides want to see more money in the fund. The question is which side is to make the contribution.'' During yesterday's discussions at Cathedral Hall, the BIU also presented witnesses who claimed long term employees were being unfairly accused of sick leave abuse, hotels were employing "on call'' staff who were not entitled to benefits on a regular basis and that night maids were to be treated as full-time employees with weekly rather than hourly pay.

On the issue of increasing paid leave of absence wages which are at present 32 percent of normal wages, Mr. Shawe claimed the hotels' economies were not strong enough to justify increased time-off pay.

"It amounts to paying people for not working. These payments mount up and are unrelated to production,'' he said. "Aside from increases in wages, there will be no more time-off pay.'' Harmony Club put up for sale: Page 5