punitive costs if they lose their bid to overturn an injunction launched by Stevedoring Services.

Yesterday both sides wrapped their arguments after the three-day hearing with the result likely to be announced by Puisne Judge Vincent Meerabux in the coming weeks.

BIU leader Derrick Burgess remained defiant in face of a possible jail term.

He said: "I am not worried about that -- we haven't broken the law or gone against the injunction.

"There's nowhere in the world where anyone can force you to do overtime. If it does come to that it will be very barbaric.'' The union was slapped with the writ after the company claimed an overtime ban in February broke a previous injunction. The union says overtime bans are not unlawful and pointed to three clauses in their collective agreement which said they could turn down overtime.

One said the union could opt out if it gave five days' notice and another said individuals could also give two hours' notice of an opt-out before the overtime was due to start.

And BIU lawyer Delroy Duncan pointed to another part of the collective bargaining agreement which said overtime "may'' be worked.

He told the judge: "I would submit `may' is not mandatory, it's discretionary.'' He said the existing agreement was a compromise between commercial pressures and the rights of workers not to be forced to work beyond their normal hours.

He argued a ruling in favour of the company would push the law too far in the favour of the bosses.

Mr. Duncan took issue with the company raising other aspects of the union's behaviour which didn't relate to the subject of the case.

He said if that evidence could be heard then the court should also hear about provocative behaviour by the employers which has sparked the overtime ban.

He said: "It's a sword that cuts both ways.'' "If we look at the conduct of employees where an overtime ban was imposed on each occasion the imposition of the overtime ban was in response to unlawful conduct on the part of the employees in the following incidents: 1/31/98: The unlawful withdrawal of overtime once declared without the consent of the BIU and or the employees which was mediated by Mr. Zack in the favour of the BIU; 28/9/98: the unilateral change in payment for mealtimes after approximately 20 years; 15-20/8/99: the refusal of management to deal with a justifiable grievance.

He added; "In each occasion an overtime ban was imposed it was as a direct result of the repudiation of the contract by the employer. The imposition of the overtime ban was not a breach of the defendants' contracts of employment and was not irregular industrial action short of a strike.'' However Stevedoring Service' lawyer Alan Dunch said the union was holding the country to ransom as it sought to bully management by withdrawing its members' labour every time there was a dispute.

He said this was "usually without notice and usually at a time when the maximum amount of disruption can be expected to occur''.

Docks dispute goes to judge Mr. Dunch said the company were not arguing that employees could be forced to work overtime against their will but whether the union's actions had broken the law.

He said on each occasion the union ignored measures under their agreement with the bosses and under labour laws to solve disputes.

He said: "If this Honourable Court concludes that, in all the circumstances, the imposition of a general overtime ban by the union does amount to irregular industrial action short of strike then, as a matter of law, by virtue of the provisions of the Labour Relations Act and the Trade Disputes Act, such actions are unlawful.'' He said the company had suffered enough from the continuing open defiance by the union.

Mr. Dunch said: "On at least eight occasions between December 24, 1998 and January 31, 2000 Stevedoring Services' operations were disrupted by a combination of refusals to work, sick outs, failures to meet overtime requests, impositions of overtime bans, strikes and work stoppages.'' And he said in February's dispute the union had broken the collective agreement by not specifying how long their overtime ban was to last. And he mocked some of the disputes the union had got involved in, including a strike over the dismissal of manager Morris Brimmer who had threatened a worker with a knife.

Mr. Dunch said: "I'm astonished. What would the union have the management do? Wait until the next occasion when he appeared with a knife?'' "How can it seriously be contended that the incident gives rise to breach of duty and trust?'' He said the union had taken action over issues that the collective agreement said they had no mandate to interfere with, including the hiring and firing of managers.