to the Labour Ministry, it was revealed yesterday during the Grotto Bay Hotel/BIU dispute hearing.

Labour Minister the Hon. Irving Pearman said last night it was too early to say whether the grievances would go before another panel of the Essential Industries Disputes Settlement Board.

The board heard that both Mermaid Beach and Palm Reef Hotels had not deducted union dues from employees since the collective agreement expired last February.

Hotel assessor Mr. W.A. (Toppy) Cowen had asked the BIU why, if it was "challenging'' Grotto Bay for not following the collective agreement, it was not doing the same for those hotels.

But BIU president Mr. Ottiwell Simmons MP told him the matter had been taken up and was in the hands of labour relations officer Mr. Ted Bassett.

The hearing got off to a stormy start yesterday when hotel lawyer Mr. Alan Dunch charged that a disputes board assessor had "the potential for bias''.

Calling the matter "very serious'', Mr. Dunch demanded the talks stop so board chairman Mr. Michael Mello could discuss the issue in private with the assessor, BIU official Mr. George Scott.

Mr. Dunch made the complaint after BIU vice president Mr. Derrick Burgess testified that Mr. Scott had been present at a Grotto Bay/BIU meeting concerning the new contract.

Mr. Mello refused to adjourn the hearing, saying he "wanted to hear more''.

Later after Mr. Dunch had cross examined Mr. Burgess, Mr. Mello said he and the other two board members, Mrs. Susan Wilson and Mr. Philip Perinchief, did not think Mr. Scott had the potential for bias by acting as assessor on the union's behalf. Mr. Mello pointed out assessors were not involved in the decision making process.

The board is being asked to decide whether a collective agreement exists between the hotel and the BIU.

If it finds one does exist, it must determine whether the hotel committed any "unfair industrial practices'', whether a "remedy'' should be granted, and whether three hotel employees were unfairly dismissed.

The BIU's position is a collective agreement -- although expired -- does exist at the hotel and will continue to until the hotel gives the union three months' notice.

"Management refuses to recognise there is a collective agreement in place,'' Mr. Burgess testified.

He said unionised employees at the hotel worked "fully'' under the BIU/HEB collective agreement up until November, 1991, and "partially'' after that date when the new contract was put in place in a "dictatorial way''.

The hotel's position is that the BIU has had no standing at the hotel since February, 1991 and the collective agreement has not been followed in full since November, 1987 when it resigned from the HEB.

Mr. Dunch said the hotel uses the collective agreement as a "guideline''. And he said the BIU "fails to understand, much less accept, an employer is free to enter into and terminate a relationship with any employee and any union at any time''.

Before concluding his testimony, Mr. Burgess told the board the hotel's new contract not recognising the BIU was "rejected unanimously by workers''.

But while cross examining Mr. Burgess, Mr. Dunch attempted to show employees were not that upset over the new contract. He said the BIU was the only aggrieved party because it was no longer being recognised by the hotel.

At the start of yesterday's hearing Mr. Dunch moved to "put an end'' to Mr.

Simmons' "conspiracy'' theory put forward on Thursday.

He presented payroll slips that showed former storeroom manager Mr Erwin Whitter's last pay cheque, although dated a week before he was fired, was made out two days after.

The BIU had claimed the discrepancy was proof there was a "plot'' to fire Mr.

Whitter.