emergency binding arbitration law.

The law could be applied to the Bermuda Forwarders dispute if necessary, but Labour Minister the Hon. J. Irving Pearman said he hoped the BIU and the forwarding company could still come to terms without it.

Mr. Pearman explained that the bill would allow the Labour and Home Affairs Minister to refer a dispute between two parties "which otherwise appears to be insolvable, to a tribunal for binding settlement''.

The 1975 Labour Relations Act was based on the idea of voluntary settlement, with exceptions provided for essential services. Voluntary binding arbitration could be used under that act, but both parties had to agree to use it.

But events in recent years had shown there were problems. The Essential Industries legislation passed last year dealt with the hotel industry. It was now clear that new legislation was needed.

The new Trade Disputes Act was designed to be a "fall back position'' for when two disputing parties are not capable of resolving the dispute themselves, and when the dispute affects the national interest.

But the simple fact that the legislation exists may help persuade the parties to resolve their differences, Mr. Pearman said.

An important aspect of the legislation was that it "had teeth''. Its awards are enforceable through the court system, and a party can turn to the Attorney General to collect the debt.

Mr. Pearman said he hoped the new legislation did not need to be used.

"Frivolous matters will not be brought forward. It would not be used very often, if at all.'' The legislation also put in place a time frame for the collection of these debts. The present legislation was "a precursor or stop-gap to what is going to have to come.'' The 1975 Labour Relations Act now needs the support of other legislation, he said. "It's not the fault of the Government, it's not the fault of society,' he said. "Society at large now finds themselves victims.'' Until that happens, however, yesterday's legislation would provide a "fall back position.'' Shadow Labour Minister Mrs. Lois Browne-Evans said the Progressive Labour Party and National Liberal Party had agreed in principle to push the bill through in a single day.

"Not only does the Government think, but everyone thinks it's important in the interests of this country -- and that's the real rationale behind this legislation. The interest of this country must be served and must be paramount.'' She said the dispute may have been exacerbated by statements from former Labour Minister Sir John Sharpe who the BIU has maintained was not impartial.

Sir John had in fact publicly said that the BIU "brought it on themselves''.

The Opposition had been using its influence to help resolve matters, she said, and had been appalled to learn that the two parties to the dispute had not talked face to face with each other.

Much can be accomplished by two parties talking face to face, without the interference of people like lawyers. The BIU, she noted, was historically reluctant to use lawyers.

There was considerable urgency in this case, she said. It was in the national interest, and the workers' trade union was threatened by "an appallingly excessive penalty''.

"It was clear that something had to be done,'' she said. "Something had to be put on our statute book for the Minister to step in. ...No-one could see Government sitting idly by without the tools.'' But at the same time, she said, "we expect it to be used only in situations where there has been the normal process of mediation and voluntary negotiation and it seems like ... a deadlock, there seems to be no resolution to the matter.'' The $5,000 fines suggested in the bill, however, seemed too small to make it truly binding. "I think the penalty should be higher.'' National Liberal Party Leader Mr. Gilbert Darrell asked what "the next move'' was.

He was also concerned that the legislation might be rushed. Legislation alone was not the answer, and this legislation seemed like a "sledge-hammer''.

Delegated Affairs Minister the Hon. Sir John Sharpe said it was wrong to say his position was biased, and recapped the history of the origins of the dispute over the 15 Bermuda Forwarders truckers. A non-binding inquiry was resorted to in the end because there was no other choice and because "there was a long-shot chance'' that its recommendations would be accepted.

Yesterday's legislation was a "parting of the ways'' with some of the principles of the 1975 Labour Relations Act but times had changed. Disputes spread beyond the confines of the original dispute, and "men's words are no longer their bonds as they used to be''.

Opposition Leader Mr. Frederick Wade said the current industrial dispute had occupied the attention of the Country in recent days. The PLP became involved because it had no direct involvement, while Government as an employer did.

Sir John should not have publicly revealed that he thought the BIU had made a mistake, he said, because it might have given strength to Bermuda Forwarders' refusal to budge.

He said he "recognises that there are rules and there is law that must be enforced''. But he said he had complaints about the Police action in arresting pickets, and thought the timing of Government's injunction against the strike was bad.

He said Bermuda was in the middle of the worst recession that it had suffered since the Second World War. It was not surprising there were problems in industrial relations: The economic pie was shrinking and everyone was trying to hang on to their own piece.

But he asked MPs to understand the BIU's position.

"BIU members will tell you that their economy died a long time ago,'' he said. They have experienced layoffs, job-sharing, redundancies, shorter work weeks and wage cuts.

"They aren't impressed with the argument that you are going to affect the economy. For them, the economy died a long time ago.'' So it was not surprising that the union responded strongly to the loss of 15 jobs. And "if a union cannot protect one job, what good is it to its members?'' Government must "try to appreciate the other side of the coin.'' He also noted that BIU members "feel there is a conspiracy abroad in the country to destroy and wipe out their union.'' When Union members hear that the Chamber of Commerce has set up a legal fund to combat the BIU -- as occurred during industrial disputes on the dock last year -- "that doesn't help to discount the conspiracy theory''.

The large size of the fine threatened in the current dispute doesn't help to dispel it either. And when Government files injunctions, followed by private companies and the HEB, and other companies threatened action, he said, the conspiracy would look bigger to BIU members.

Mr. Wade said the PLP had advised the union that it ought to have its members return to work in the areas where the law is in dispute. But it was wrong to say the BIU had broken the law. "It's a question that will be answered by our courts,'' he said.

The PLP was keen to see the dispute narrowed to the problems between Bermuda Forwarders and the BIU. "Maybe the threat of this legislation over the heads of the parties may well be something that...will overcome their bullheadedness.'' Mr. Stuart Hayward (Ind) said he supported the legislation in principle. Part of the reason the issue arose, he said, "is because of an historical discounting of people who are perceived as powerless''.

Attitudes still persist in Bermuda's labour relations, he said, that this legislation will not address.

He suggested a "code of ethical employment conduct'' for employers and employees.

And he called for a Royal Commission on labour unrest in Bermuda. It had been going on too long, he said. With one party associated with labour, and the other with management, "it is too close to all of us to step back and view it objectively''.

Mr. Eugene Blakeney (PLP), general secretary of the Bermuda Public Service Association, said he had long been an advocate of voluntary arbitration.

Trinidad had an industrial court he said, which was tied up with cases for two to three years because employers used it as a delaying tactic.

He noted that the current dispute expanded when workers refused to handle Bermuda Forwarders cargo. Some countries had laws dealing with the right of workers to refuse to handle "hot cargo'' but Bermuda did not.

So the situation flared up, and there was no mechanism to handle it.

"I don't believe there was blatant disregard for law and order,'' he said.

But the union was put in a difficult position. "From the union's point of view, regardless to some extent of what the law and the penalties might be, there was no real alternative.'' Education Minister The Hon. Gerald Simons said there is a need for good employment practices in Bermuda.

"Fortunately in Bermuda, most unions and employers are able to solve their disputes,'' he said. "But this current dispute has clearly fallen through the cracks of current legislation.'' He said Government brought yesterday's legislation with reluctance. Government would prefer to have the parties involved solve the dispute among themselves.

Mr. Simons said most blacks in Bermuda who have advanced in business, including himself, recognise the union was instrumental in those advances.

And he stressed that he would not be a part of a Government that sets out to destroy a union.

Mr. Simons said "there is also a need for employers to come to terms with the needs of their employees, for workers to give an honest day's work, and for unions to abide by collective agreements''.

He said good management/labour relations do not come about by chance.

Mr. Simons also noted that often there are tensions between the union and employers, which have a racial undertone. "We as a country need to address this,'' he said.

PLP MP Mr. David Allen said unions have had a very healthy influence in many areas of the community.

He said in addition to helping union members, the union has also forced employers throughout Bermuda to increase their employees' wages and benefits so that they will believe they do not need to be unionised.

While calling the events of the past week, particularly relating to tourists, regrettable, Mr. Allen said months of complacency led to Bermudians who are hospitable by nature to act otherwise.

"We want to see Government put some kind of provision in for employers as it did with the union in the last few days,'' he said.

Mr. Allen said the legislation, which included "a lot of mays'' had some potential for problems.

But, he added, obviously we see a need to get something done in the short term.

"I have no problem supporting this Bill with some reservations,'' he said.

"But the PLP has taken a stance the national interests must be put first and people of this country are crying out for a root out of this crisis.

"Hopefully, this bill, and the unprecedented process of Government and the PLP and NLP working together, will help to relieve the pain.'' Government Whip Mr. David Dyer echoed the two preceding speakers comments, saying both union and non-union members have benefited from the existence of the union.

"But,'' he said, "we need to come the point where we can solve disputes in such a way they do not become national issues.'' "This bill will perhaps give people time to sit and think more soberly and have great concern for national interests and the impact their actions may have on the country as a whole,'' he said.

"This still allows them (the parties in dispute) to go court if necessary.

But if they cannot solve the dispute at least before these things become nationally destructive, they can be forced to sit down again under the coercion or request of the Minister (of Labour).'' Calling the legislation fair to all parties, Dr. Dyer said no party should boast about helping to bring it about.

"This victory belongs to the people of Bermuda,'' he said, "because it will remove one more stress and strain that we all had to bear.'' Mr. Phillip Smith (UBP) said while he supports the legislation, it would change attitudes.

Mr. Smith also agreed with Mrs. Browne Evans that the $5,000 fine could have been higher.

"I personally feel there is a small segment of individuals in the community who would like to bust the union,'' he said. "I say that because of things I've heard from good authority would give me that impression and things I've seen.'' Mr. Smith said any attempt to bust the union would set Bermuda back by 20 to 30 years because every Bermudian had benefited from it.

He said the legislation would ensure that both parties are penalised in the same way.

Referring to a fax just received about Bermuda Forwarders writ against the BIU, Mr. Eugene Cox (PLP) asked Mr. Pearman to assure the House and the public that he did not promise Bermuda Forwarders' lawyer Mr. Alan Dunch that the legislation would not apply to that dispute if court action is being taken.

He called on Mr. Pearman to make it clear that he nor the Premier had deliberately misled the people of Bermuda.

Mr. Pearman, who said he did not open the document which was delivered to the House yesterday afternoon and read by Deputy Premier the Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto, said: "The timing of that is obviously very deliberate because we've come to this House to deal with the level of inactivity that has existed for months''.

He said he told Mr. Dunch if the parties were working to resolve the dispute, he will not use "the vehicle that this House is discussing''.

"This will be used very judiciously and as a last resort,'' Mr. Pearman stressed about the legislation. "I, personally, do not believe this Bill can solve the dispute. But that's for the courts.

"I will assure members that if whatever steps that are in progress now do not come to grips with the dispute, this (Bill) will be invoked.'' Responding to Mr. Hayward's concern about the employer/employee relationship, Mr. Pearman said whether they come about as relationships or statutes, Government would look at this.

But, he added, "we will need this important, back up legislation, in the short term to resolve disputes''.

Mr. Wade said he was asking again for a straight answer: Would the Minister bring the Bermuda Forwarders dispute to this new tribunal? Mr. Pearman told the PLP that he was going to use this bill to deal with this crisis. "You cannot now back down from that.'' Mr. Pearman said: "The events of today were not my doing.'' But he had also clearly stated that this legislation would be back-up legislation, and if those involved in a dispute were doing something to settle it, it would not be invoked.

If one of the parties had now taken the matter to court, he said he would have to get legal advice on whether he could do something that might pre-empt the court.

He said he had no intention of misleading the House.

Mr. Wade said Mr. Pearman should press ahead with the action and the court would let him know whether or not he can proceed. He should not permit "some clever lawyer to derail this House and this Country''.

Mrs. Browne-Evans said she was unhappy with Mr. Pearman's lack of a clear response to Mr. Wade's question. "I will never ever get in bed with the Government again as long as I'm in the Opposition,'' she said.

There were no onbjections when the bill was put to the vote.