Stevedoring Services' court victory over the Bermuda Industrial Union's overtime ban has opened the door for the company to sue the union for losses suffered as a result of disruption.

Puisne Judge Vincent Meerabux's ruling that the union acted illegally in banning overtime has given the company ammunition to sue for losses caused by the action.

Having decided that the union acted illegally by breaching an earlier injunction prohibiting overtime bans, Mr. Justice Meerabux must now decide what action to take against BIU leaders Derrick Burgess, Chris Furbert and Sinclair Smith.

Theoretically, he could jail them for the illegal action, but this is thought to be extremely unlikely.

He has also to decide on legal costs for the three day hearing last month, which will probably be awarded against the union.

If the company decides to sue for losses caused when the union breached the injunction and banned overtime at the docks in Hamilton in February, it will have to launch a separate legal action.

Stevedoring Services president and chief executive officer Michael Lohan refused yesterday to disclose what the company will do next.

He would only say: "The company is very gratified that our position has been vindicated by the highest court in the land.'' Mr. Burgess, the union's president, said on Friday that the union will hold a press conference tomorrow to respond to the court defeat.

At the Supreme Court hearing, the union sought to have the injunction banning overtime dismissed, claiming it was a breach of the constitution to force people to work overtime.

Stevedoring Services' lawyer Alan Dunch said the agreement between the company and the union did not force anyone to do overtime against their will.

Union could face claim for damages Mr. Justice Meerabux found it was "custom and practice'' for overtime to be worked at the docks, which were an essential service, vital to the economic well-being of the Island.

He stated: "In practice and in the usual course in the operation of Hamilton docks there is contractual duty by the dockworkers to work a reasonable amount of overtime in relation to contractual work when required except in specified cases.'' He added: "I think that the object of the instruction banning overtime was to frustrate the very commercial object for which the contracts of employment were made.

"It struck at the foundation of the consensual intentions of the parties to those contracts and amounted, in my judgement, to an instruction to commit what were clearly breaches or abrogations of these contracts.'' UNIONS UNS