president of the Bermuda Industrial Union said yesterday.

"I think Government by so doing would appear to be lining up with the employers against the workers,'' Mr. Ottiwell Simmons said.

"The whole thing sounds to me as though it's a fix.'' "Quite frankly, I think that the workers of Bermuda are going to have to rise up against the Government,'' Mr. Simmons said. "The Government is against the workers, the employers are against the workers.'' If something was not done, "they'll have us right back into slavery.'' Government recently decided not to fight a court judgment that said there was no contract between the BIU and Pink Beach Club.

Government had received advice on appealing the Court of Appeal decision to the Privy Council in London.

Mr. Alan Dunch, lawyer for Pink Beach, said the decision meant there was no collective bargaining agreement between the hotel industry and the union.

"Every hotel is free to conduct their labour relations in the manner they decide is in the best interests of the hotel,'' Mr. Dunch said.

But Mr. Simmons said the Court of Appeal decision was based on a false premise.

The three-member board was only told of one decision in which a Government disputes board ruled no collective bargaining agreement was in place, he said.

The Court of Appeal was not told about decisions in another dispute involving Grotto Bay Hotel, he said. In that case, it was finally ruled there was a contract between the hotel and the union.

Both cases related to whether the hotels and BIU still had a legal tie after the 1988-1991 contract expired. The hotels terminated that agreement in February of 1991.

When Pink Beach moved to fire worker Mr. Perry Goater, the BIU appealed to the Labour Minister, saying the hotel had not honoured the grievance procedure as set out in the collective bargaining agreement.

The Hon. Irving Pearman referred the matter to the Essential Industries Disputes Settlement Board, asking it to first determine whether a collective agreement existed.

Pink Beach argued in Supreme Court to halt the referral, but former Chief Justice the Hon. Sir James Astwood rejected that argument. The recent Court of Appeal decision was based on Pink Beach's appeal against Sir James' ruling.

Mr. Justice Henry, who wrote the Court of Appeal decision, said Mr. Pearman acted unreasonably in referring the Pink Beach issue to the Essential Industries Board two weeks after it had ruled on the "same question'' between the union and Grotto Bay.

That ruling, handed down in January, was that no collective agreement existed.

Government lawyer Mr. Philip Holder argued that the cases were different because Grotto Bay and Pink Beach were different hotels.

In any case, the January Essential Industries Board decision was appealed to the Trade Disputes Tribunal, which in October overturned the earlier decision and said there was a collective agreement at Grotto Bay.

Mr. Dunch said yesterday the recent Grotto Bay ruling "has nothing to do with it''.

And he accused Mr. Simmons of "histrionics''. "The time has come for the union to stop advocating what are clearly political positions and to start doing what is in the best interests of the workers,'' he said. That was to "work toward the creation of harmony and peace on the labour relations front''.

The BIU would not be appealing to the Privy Council, Mr. Simmons said. "It's their case,'' Mr. Simmons said of Government. "They are obligated to the people of this country, just as much as they are obligated to foreign companies and foreign hotels.'' Mr. Dunch said Mr. Simmons appeared to want Government to do his work for him.

Mr. Simmons would not be specific about what the union's response would be.

"It's up to the workers,'' he said. "I know what's required. What's required is to fight for your rights.

"Nobody's giving anybody anything in this country.'' Mr. Simmons said no meeting was scheduled to discuss the decision. "It's on the front burner,'' he said.