Lawyers acting for fast food franchise KFC Bermuda have moved to block an employment dispute at the restaurant from going to arbitration.And they also claim that former Economy Minister Patrice Minors “acted unreasonably and outside the parameters of her jurisdiction” when setting out the issues that a tribunal panel should address when examining the case.The dispute made headlines last year when the Bermuda Industrial Union called for a boycott on the popular Queen Street eatery.At the heart of the dispute was a February, 2011 call by KFC bosses to modify the company’s three-year-old collective bargaining agreement it had with staff.Talks with union bosses began in April 2011, but after six months of negotiations, management and union representatives were still deadlocked over a number of conditions of employment, including pension and health contributions for some workers.As a result, in December 2011, company chiefs announced that the collective bargaining agreement was null and void.A clause in the agreement declared that either party can withdraw from the contract after three years.Then-Economy and Trade Minister Patrice Minors referred the matter to arbitration in May 2012, but only after BIU members had marched on the premises and called for customers to boycott the business.At a Commercial Court hearing presided over by Chief Justice Ian Kawaley yesterday, KFC lawyers argued that it was “disproportionate or unreasonable” for the matter to be sent to arbitration.Attorney Peter Sanderson said that the dispute was not a matter of public interest because it did not involve an essential industry.And he claimed that the rights of company bosses were being “interfered with” by being subjected to the decisions of an independent tribunal.“The fact is there is no public interest in this matter and therefore the decision to send it to arbitration is disproportionate,” Mr Sanderson said.“KFC does have business rights which the Minister has interfered with by sending it to arbitration. Government is saying that these are the terms and conditions of the tribunal and that is infringing on how people can run a business.“What the Minister has done is put this issue in the hands of a tribunal and taken it out of the hands of KFC, which can no longer negotiate freely.”Mr Sanderson’s colleague, Jai Pachai said that collective agreement was not enforceable by law and was “binding in honour only”.He argued that the Minister had made a mistake by failing to acknowledge that the collective agreement had terminated.“The issue of termination is something that is so obviously not something that the Minister should have referred to the tribunal,” he said.“The authority has to give the adjudicating tribunal the basis for which they should operate.“It was right for her to identify what the disputes were but it was wrong of her to to include matters which she should have excluded from the terms of reference.”KFC had also objected to former BIU representative George Basden being appointed to the arbitration panel, questioning his “complete impartiality in the matter”.During yesterday’s session, the company’s legal team questioned why the Minister had failed to act on the objection by seeking an alternative panel member.Responding to the allegations lawyer Craig Rothwell said that the Minister had exercised common sense in sending the matter to arbitration.He said that the dispute centred on terms and conditions of employees rather than the termination of the collective bargaining agreement and that the matter had gained a great deal of public attention.“The Minister’s sensible, reasonable and logical approach was to try and reach a workable solution — she felt it was clearly a labour dispute relating to terms and conditions,” Mr Rothwell said.The hearing continues today.