"insubordinate'', "irresponsible'' and "unprofessional'' on the first day of hearings into their dismissals.

It will be up to the Essential Industries Disputes Settlement Board to decide if the three were unfairly fired, as alleged by the Bermuda Industrial Union, or whether Grotto Bay acted appropriately.

The hotel's resident manager Mr. Alan E. Lugo, was the only witness to testify during yesterday's proceedings. Under questioning from Grotto Bay's lawyer, Mr. Alan Dunch, Mr. Lugo described each man's disciplinary record, and the circumstances leading up to their dismissals.

The first case involved storeroom manager Mr. Erwin Whitter's dismissal in April, 1992, for "gross insubordination and incomplete fulfilment of his duties''.

According to Mr. Lugo, Mr. Whitter's dismissal was a direct result of an incident when he refused to put away a large delivery to the hotel's storeroom.

Mr. Lugo said in addition to this particular incident, verbal complaints had been made about Mr. Whitter's performance by other department heads, including the hotel's executive chef.

Mr. Lugo next answered questions regarding bar porter Mr. Larry Robinson, who was also fired in April because of "his failure to perform his duties''.

Disciplinary records read out at the hearings said Mr. Robinson had "a history of disappearing from his post for long periods of time''.

Robinson was fired for not stocking a bar area as he had been requested to do four days before.

Dining room captain Mr. Barry Smith, who lost his job last November, was accused of receiving payment for a meal from guests, and pocketing the money himself instead of giving it to the cashier.

In a review of his employment file, Mr. Lugo revealed that Mr. Smith had his employment with the hotel terminated and reinstated on three different occasions.

BIU president Mr. Ottiwell Simmons MP voiced objections to the admission of the past memos and warnings. He sited an article in the 1985-88 collective agreement which stated that such records were to be removed from the employee's file after a certain length of time.

Mr. Lugo eventually admitted that the hotel had not followed normal procedure, but maintained that he had been asked by Mr. Dunch to gather information showing the men's employment history.

First addressing Mr. Smith's case in his cross-examination, Mr. Simmons asked why the Police had not been called after "the alleged theft''.

The resident manager said the hotel decided to handle the problem internally because the guests involved were leaving the next day, and management wished to "spare Mr. Smith a court appearance''.

Mr. Simmons then asked if there was any solid evidence that Mr. Smith had stolen anything, insisting that neither Mr. Lugo nor the maitre d' who reported the incident, actually saw him take any money.

"Isn't that why you didn't call the Police? Because he did not steal anything?'' he asked.

Mr. Lugo replied that the meal check "appeared to be tampered with'' and the $100 travellers' check Mr. Smith said he cashed for the guests could not be found.

Mr. Simmons then asked why full written statements had not been collected from the maitre d' and the guests involved.

"So far, we don't know if he's stolen anything, and if so, how much,'' said Mr. Simmons.

The hearings continue today at the Anglican Cathedral Hall in Hamilton.