Forwarders' workers terminated their own employment.

He shocked the Supreme Court by saying the former employees ended their contracts by walking off the job.

Mr. Hall was speaking at the outset of the long-awaited court hearing between the trucking company and the Bermuda Industrial Union.

"For the purposes of these proceedings we assume that the contracts came to an end following certain actions taken by the defendants,'' he said.

It was last summer the Country was virtually brought to a standstill following sympathy strikes over the Forwarders' dispute.

The 15 employees walked out after the dismissal of their shop steward Mr. Lynn Darrell.

The firm ignored a recommendation by a non-binding Board of Inquiry for the men to be re-employed.

Government brought in the new controversial Trades Dispute Act to resolve the row. This would impose a compulsory settlement on the parties -- and its effect would be retroactive.

But the company has fought the legislation tooth and nail, and took the matter to court.

Government's lawyer, the Attorney General Mr. Walter Maddocks was present at yesterday's hearing before the Hon. Mr. Justice Richard Grounds.

Mr. Alan Dunch, for Bermuda Forwarders, immediately picked up on Mr. Hall's admission.

As it had been conceded the employees had brought their contracts to an end, it could be assumed no labour dispute existed, he said.

Labour Minister the Hon. Irving Pearman had no right, therefore, to refer the matter to the new dispute board.

Mr. Dunch said: "The crux of the matter was that the union was grieving over the failure of Bermuda Forwarders to abide by the recommendation and that led to the events of June and July.'' He added he had sought a final Supreme Court ruling on the firm's decision to ignore the non-binding recommendation.

"But now we have been ordered by the Minister to appear before this newly appointed tribunal which has unheralded potential power to take away the existing rights of the applicant as an employer.'' He declared it was wrong, unjust and unfair to compel his client to deal with the same issues it had dealt with before the Board of Inquiry. "We have come before this court to get a determination of our legal rights so that we have a judicial declaration.'' On the matter of "retrospective legislation'', Mr. Dunch said that on July 17, the Minister had referred what he termed "the labour dispute'' to the new Tribunal for binding settlement.

Mr. Dunch moved that the Minister's action be quashed because it represented a bid to oust the authority of the court when proceedings were still sub judice.

He said the new legislation "startlingly'' not only moved the goal-posts but altered the game.

Mr. Dunch said the powers of the new Tribunal raised serious implications for the employer, who could now face punitive sanctions, or even punitive damages, with no powers of redress, if he disobeyed a directive.

Applying for the Minister's order to be quashed, Mr. Dunch said: "It is wrong that a factual circumstance of 1991 can be subject to this new Act.'' On the matter of retroactive legislation, Mr. Hall then contended a labour dispute had in fact existed as defined in the 1975 Labour Relations Act.

He pointed out a judicial review could be made if it was felt the Minister had acted beyond his powers.

The hearing resumes today.