copycat legal action.

Other hotels could also challenge Government's right to send industrial rows to a board of inquiry.

And this risked wrecking Government's bid to speed up resolutions of labour conflict.

That was the claim yesterday of Bermuda Industrial Union lawyer Mr. Julian Hall MP.

He declared the Supreme Court was an "inappropriate'' battleground for settling industrial conflict.

Instead, the Essential Industries Disputes Settlements Board should be used -- at least to start with.

Mr. Hall was speaking on the second day of the court hearing into Pink Beach's attempt to stop its row with the BIU being sent to the board.

The board had been asked by Labour Minister the Hon. Irving Pearman to settle the following points: Did a collective bargaining agreement exist when the BIU asked Pink Beach to follow a grievance procedure over the firing of barman Mr. Perry Goater? If yes, was the hotel guilty of an industrial practice? Was Mr. Goater's dismissal justified? Pink Beach lawyer Mr. Alan Dunch wants Chief Justice the Hon. Sir James Astwood to quash Mr. Pearman's decision to refer the first two points.

He also wants a ban on a hearing into them.

Mr. Dunch has argued the board already made a final ruling on these points after a hearing involving Grotto Bay.

The board stated the collective agreement between the BIU and the Hotel Employers of Bermuda ended on February 24, 1991, said Mr. Dunch.

He also claimed Mr. Pearman could only refer issues reported to him -- yet the union had not complained to him about the collective agreement or an unfair labour practice.

Mr. Pearman had acted beyond his jurisdiction, arbitrarily, and capriciously, alleged Mr. Dunch.

Yesterday Mr. Hall declared the courts were an "entirely inappropriate'' arena for settling industrial disputes.

And he added: "The ideal foundation in a free Parliamentary democracy to industrial relations must continue to be free collective bargaining with a minimum of third party intervention and a minimum of interfering by the state in the process of free collective bargaining.'' Mr. Hall said Pink Beach's course -- if successful -- could lead to a flood of litigation every time hotels questioned the Minister's referral.

"The machinery set up by Parliament is effective as long as it is recognised the courts of law have, by statutory design, a minimal role to play.'' Mr. Hall stressed the law entitled Mr. Pearman "to take any steps which seem to him to promote a settlement for the dispute or difference.'' And he said the issue of a collective bargaining agreement was key to resolving the question of Mr. Goater's dismissal.

"The question of whether an agreement was in force is a question which the board had to determine in seeking to settle the labour dispute between the BIU and Pink Beach, even as regards the narrow Perry Goater issue.

"Even if the board was to say in passing this matter has already been resolved in the Grotto Bay hearing a finding still had to be made by the board in the context of seeking to settle that dispute.

"It is not a finding for the Minister to make. He had to be an honest broker.'' He continued: "The matter had to be considered by the board, even if it took 30 seconds disposing of the case.'' Mr. Hall said Mr. Dunch could have put his arguments during a preliminary stage of the board hearing.

And, if necessary, the hearing could have been halted while he sought a Supreme Court order to stop the board ruling on the first two points of reference.

Mr. Hall also attacked Mr. Dunch over his exchange of letters with Mr. Pearman after the referral to the board.

He said lawyers should be discouraged from writing letters to a Minister, aimed at putting pressure on him to stop a referral.

Earlier, Government lawyer Mr. Philip Holder completed his submission, dismissing claims Mr. Pearman had acted arbitrarily.

He said Mr. Pearman had acted in good faith.

"The Minister could not be said to be acting beyond his jurisdiction since he was empowered upon a report being made, as constituted by the union's letter of the 24th November 1992, to take steps which in his discretion may assist a resolution of the dispute.''