repeatedly by a labour disputes board, according to the hotel's lawyer.

But Mr. Alan Dunch must first persuade the Court of Appeal that the Minister of Home Affairs and the former Chief Justice erred in their decisions to send the Pink Beach Club before the board.

Mr. Dunch attacked the Minister the Hon. Irving Pearman and former Chief Justice the Hon. Sir James Astwood during the appeal of a case which started with the firing of barman Mr. Perry Goater last year. The lawyer said the hotel was quite happy to go to the inquiry over the dismissal, but it objected to other terms that have been applied.

The Minister received a letter from the Bermuda Industrial Union over the firing of Mr. Goater in November last year. He passed the dispute to the Essential Industries Disputes Settlement Board.

Pink Beach management complained when Mr. Pearman also asked the board to determine whether a collective bargaining agreement was in force with the BIU.

Mr. Dunch maintained that the agreement had already terminated and it had been discussed by the board during talks on the Grotto Bay Hotel.

The collective bargaining agreement between the BIU and the Hotel Employers of Bermuda came into existence in early 1989. It was terminated in February, 1991, only weeks after Pink Beach had left the HEB.

Pink Beach maintain that the Minister heard about the complaint by Mr. Goater and "sat on it'' until Mr. Pearman knew the board's decision over Grotto Bay, which stated there was no collective bargaining agreement.

Speaking to the three Appeal court judges Mr. Dunch said: "Imagine you are the Minister. Your board has come back to you and said there is no collective bargaining agreement. It is dead.

"You have got the letter about Perry Goater and you send it to the board but why on earth would you send it on a issue that is not referred to in the letter, that has just been decided.

"All the more bizarre is that the Minister knew from February 1 that this particular hotel was not a member of the HEB and it never had a collective agreement with the BIU.'' The matter went to Supreme Court where the Chief Justice upheld the Minister's decision. Mr. Dunch claimed Sir James had erred.

He said: "There can be no greater abuse of the process than making another hotel go through the expense for an issue that has already been decided.'' Government lawyer Mr. Philip Holder defended the Minister's decision stating that the cases of Pink Beach and Grotto Bay were different because they were different hotels.

Mr. Holder said both should be treated separately and the Pink Beach decision should be treated as though a collective bargaining agreement with the union actually existed.

But he was questioned by the three judges. President the Hon. Sir Denys Roberts asked if the discussion procedure would have to be carried out by the board for every hotel.

Mr. Holder said: "That is an extreme position. There would be a set of decisions from the board that the union and the industry could use as guidelines.

"It would certainly not be necessary for every hotel to go through this process. It is early days.'' Mr. Alan Dunch.