of inquiry was given a Supreme Court savaging yesterday.

The Hon. Irving Pearman was accused of: Exceeding his powers; Flouting natural justice; and Acting arbitrarily and unfairly.

Pink Beach lawyer Mr. Alan Dunch went on the offensive as he battled to stop the referral to the Essential Industries Disputes Settlement Board.

But his arguments were later attacked by Government lawyer Mr. Philip Holder.

Yesterday's hearing before Chief Justice the Hon. Sir James Astwood was told the disputes board had been asked to settle three points.

Firstly, whether a collective agreement existed when the BIU asked Pink Beach to follow a grievance procedure over the firing of worker Mr. Perry Goater.

Secondly, if there was an agreement, was the hotel guilty of an unfair labour practice? And finally, was Mr. Goater's dismissal justified? Mr. Dunch wants Sir James to quash the decision to refer the first two points to the board.

He is also seeking a ban on a hearing into them.

Mr. Dunch yesterday declared Mr. Pearman was wrong to ask the board to resolve the first two points.

These had already been settled by the board after a previous hearing involving Grotto Bay.

The board decided no collective agreement existed at Grotto Bay, and no unfair labour practice had been committed, said Mr. Dunch.

Indeed, the board ruled the agreement between the BIU and the Hotel Employers of Bermuda ended on February 24, 1991.

"To this day no such collective bargaining agreement exists,'' stressed Mr.

Dunch, adding the board's ruling had been "final, conclusive and binding''.

It was absurd to suggest it only applied to Grotto Bay -- as Mr. Pearman had stated.

"It is a ridiculous proposition and flies in the face of the concept that litigation must have finality,'' said Mr. Dunch.

Mr. Dunch added Mr. Pearman had tripped up in another area as well.

Mr. Pearman could refer to the board only those disputes which had been reported to him.

But the Bermuda Industrial Union had complained to him on just one point: the dismissal of Mr. Goater, argued Mr. Dunch.

The BIU had not complained about the issue of a collective bargaining agreement, or an unfair labour practice.

"The Minister cannot concoct his own perception of a dispute and refer that,'' argued Mr. Dunch.

"Otherwise it will lead to Government directly interfering in labour relations.'' Mr. Dunch said it was clear Mr. Pearman had no jurisdiction to refer the first two points to the board.

"He therefore acted in excess of his jurisdiction, or without any jurisdiction. His decision must be quashed.'' Mr. Dunch also accused Mr. Pearman of acting "arbitrarily and capriciously''.

This had been evident from his exchange of letters with the Minister.

"I submit to you the correspondence cannot be clearer evidence of the capriciousness of the Minister.

"He has clearly set out to duck responsibility and duck the issues -- I presume on advice, although sometimes I wonder.

"At no time was he prepared to deal with the substance of the matter.'' Mr. Holder dismissed Mr. Dunch's case, defending Mr. Pearman's right to refer the issue to the board.

"The award in the Grotto Bay Beach Hotel dispute, which is relied upon by the applicant, did not hold that the collective agreement was not in place with regards to any other hotel.

"The subject matter, or grievance, was not the same since it involved different parties and different issues.

"The tribunal it is submitted is not a court and its award cannot be conclusive and binding upon another tribunal.

"The function of a statutory tribunal having the nature of the board is to consider each reference to it and to make its award by examining each case on its merits.

"If this proposition is correct then the board cannot be bound by its own previous decisions.'' Mr. Holder said there were significant differences between the Grotto Bay dispute and the Pink Beach one.

Today Mr. Holder will wrap up his submission. It will be followed by arguments from BIU lawyer Mr. Julian Hall MP.