division is the latest round in the long-running dispute between the BIU and the Hotel Employers of Bermuda. Here, the The Royal Gazette reviews the long history of the contract talks.

A four-year contract between hoteliers and the Bermuda Industrial Union is due to expire this year, without ever being signed by either party.

Confusion continues to reign between the BIU and the Hotel Employers of Bermuda, while Government's Essential Industries Disputes Settlement Board has only muddied the waters further.

This April, the EIDSB is scheduled to take a third stab at resolving the dispute over whether about 3,000 hotel workers are entitled to gratuity increases of 25 cents per day for the year 1992.

And today, unionised hotel workers will decide whether to hold a strike vote on the issue.

The stakes are huge. The BIU says hotels could owe workers hundreds of thousands of dollars in retroactive tips.

Understanding the fight takes one back to May 17, 1991, when Mr. William Hobgood awarded a three-year contract between the BIU and HEB.

Terms included wage hikes of five, five, and six percent for 1991, 1992, and 1993 respectively, with the contract expiring on February 24, 1994.

A 25-cent a day increase in the gratuities charged to most guests was to take effect on May 24, 1991.

Four days after the award was released, the BIU membership voted it down. The HEB rejected the award on January 7, 1992, but hotels implemented the first-year wage increase of five percent.

Also in accordance with the Hobgood Award, most HEB hotels brought in a gratuities increase higher than 25 cents. Hobgood had said they could bring in a hike higher than the one guaranteed to employees and treat the extra funds "as hotel income to be used in their discretion''.

The BIU strongly opposed that clause, saying it marked a change in the basic arrangement that existed between the two parties.

With the Hobgood Award effectively dead, Government in 1992 appointed the EIDSB under Prof. Ronald Haughton to see how much progress the two sides had made toward a new contract, hear outstanding issues, and make an award.

That board, which reported on January 14, 1993, called for a "pause in the collective bargaining process'', extending the contract a further year to February of 1995 and awarding small wage increases beyond the five percent already implemented from the first year of the Hobgood Award.

On gratuities, the Haughton Award said the 25-cent increase awarded by Hobgood was "to be continued throughout the period covered by this award, i.e. ...for each of the remaining two years''.

That wording was ambiguous. The award clearly covered 1992, because it provided for a two percent wage increase that year. But "the remaining two years'' of the contract could only refer to 1993 and 1994, meaning workers were not entitled to tips increases for 1992.

A short time later, another EIDSB was convened under Prof. Haughton. Among other issues, it was to decide whether "a certain proportion of the gratuities'' collected between February 25, 1992 and February 24, 1993 was owed to workers.

By May 21, the board had made a decision on all three issues, it said in its August 5 report.

But an hour after the award was signed, HEB executive director Mr. John Harvey wrote Prof. Haughton and urged him not to release the report, saying "your board's award as it relates to gratuities will have far-reaching effects on my members''.

If release of the report was delayed, "we commit ourselves to present to you and your board members a comprehensive position on this subject of gratuities'', Mr. Harvey said.

Prof. Haughton wrote back on May 24, saying the signed report had been released to the Minister. "Since the board has made a binding decision, it cannot now delay release of the award to the Ministry or otherwise, as requested,'' he said.

But after further urging from the Ministry, the board agreed to hold a further one-day hearing on August 2 to resolve interpretation of the gratuities issue.

Following that hearing, the board wrote: "It would serve no good purpose to repeat the cogent arguments and rebuttal arguments regarding the gratuity issue, and the meaning of the...language in the 14th January award, which were presented to the board by each party to the hearing on August 2.

"It is sufficient to note that the board has carefully considered the presentations of both parties.

"After lengthy and serious discussions in executive sessions...the board has decided not to change the...gratuities language in the 14 January award.

In accepting requests for interpretation the board is not required to change language to which an interpretation is addressed.'' The interpretation given to the gratuities issue on May 21 had "no standing'', since the matter had now been heard again on August 2, the decision said.

"The award of January 14 stands as written.'' If either party wanted to appeal, it could go to court, the board said.

Canon James Francis, who had also sat on the earlier board, wrote a dissenting opinion to that decision.

In it, he said the wording in the January 14 award originally said the gratuities increase from Hobgood was "to be continued throughout the period covered by this award.'' But on January 14 Prof. Haughton telephoned him and instructed him to make corrections, which were to "in no way alter the substance of the document,'' Canon Francis said. "In my enthusiasm to comply with your instructions, and to expedite an already late report, I failed to recognise the significance of the words: `each of the remaining two years,''' Canon Francis said.

In its May decision, the new board decided to return to the original wording, again omitting the words "each of the remaining two years,'' he said.

But after the further one-day hearing on August 2, the board decided to return to the earlier wording, which Canon Francis felt had been improperly altered.

"I can see no valid reason for the board to change its original interpretation and award of May 20,'' he said. "It is my humble submission that the August 5 decision of the board could do untold damage to our industry, particularly at a time when there is a desire for peace and harmony in the workplace.'' He refused to sign the August award.