Protesters who stop work to demonstrate against immigration reform are likely to be breaking the law, according to a ruling from Chief Justice Ian Kawaley.

The island’s top judge said it was “strongly arguable” that the withdrawal of labour in “circumstances where it has no connection to a labour dispute” was a breach of section 34 of the Labour Relations Act.

However, at the end of a third day of action on the grounds of the House of Assembly yesterday, Chris Furbert, the president of the Bermuda Industrial Union, argued that the protest is in line with Section 10 of the island’s Constitution, which protects the right to assemble.

Fellow organiser Reverend Nicholas Tweed of the People’s Campaign urged the crowd to come back for more, saying: “We need you to show up for the work of justice. We need you to show up for freedom. We need you to show up to engage in self-determination.

“It’s only by taking our destiny in our hands that we can determine our future for as long as it takes. We are going to finish what we started!”

The demonstrations which saw hundreds of people gather outside Parliament on Friday and Monday continued yesterday, with ferries and buses also cancelled again.

A nine-hour blockade outside the House of Assembly on Monday prevented Parliament from sitting and from the Pathways legislation being debated — an outcome described by Progressive Labour Party politicians as unprecedented in Bermuda’s history.

That session was rearranged for today, and then again for Friday following a late announcement from House of Assembly Speaker Randy Horton last night; it is due to be the last before MPs break for Easter. Although the Pathways bill could theoretically stay on the order paper and be read at a later date, the budget debate is more pressing, as the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the financial year 2016-17 must be approved by Parliament before March 31.

MPs still have two Ministries to scrutinise over the course of eight hours — Community, Culture and Sport and Economic Development — before senators start their budget debate.

The Senate has postponed its meeting for today, with a new date yet to be set.

The Upper Chamber has allocated 22 hours to debate specific budget items chosen by the Opposition and that time is usually spread over three days. Senators also have a general economic debate, with no time limit.

Dr Justice Kawaley’s comments accompanied an interim injunction he issued against the BIU, Mr Furbert and Mr Tweed — respondents in a civil action brought by Michael Fahy, the Minister of Home Affairs, to prevent the further withdrawal of labour.

Mr Furbert and Mr Tweed were not present at a hastily-held hearing at Supreme Court on Friday but Dr Justice Kawaley said they would be asked to appear before him tomorrow to argue their case and could apply to be heard sooner on short notice.

Section 34 of the Labour Relations Act 1975 declares any “lockout, strike or irregular industrial action short of a strike” to be unlawful if it is not related to a labour dispute or if it is “designed or calculated to coerce the government either directly or by inflicting severe hardship upon the community”.

The Act says any person taking part, inciting or in any way encouraging others to take part in such a lockout, strike or irregular industrial action commits an offence, punishable upon conviction in the Supreme Court by a two-year jail term and/or a $2,000 fine.

Senator Fahy, in an affidavit to the court, said: “There is an imminent danger of unlawful activity occurring if the respondents are not restrained from inciting or in any way encouraging, persuading or influencing any person to take part in, or otherwise act in furtherance of a strike or irregular industrial action short of a strike, contrary to [the Act].”

He cited as evidence a letter sent to the Premier by Mr Furbert on March 8 threatening to call on “all people” to protest the proposed Pathways legislation by withdrawing their labour unless the Bill is removed from the order paper of the House within 24 hours.

The Minister also referred to a call to action from both the union and pressure group the People’s Campaign, issued and later withdrawn on March 9, as reported by this newspaper, and reissued on March 10.

He said: “I am very concerned that this withdrawal of labour may escalate in coming days unless the government accedes to the primary demand relating to the legislation ... I am asking the court to exercise its authority ... to order the respondents to stop inciting workers so that a measure of calm may allow proper debate and assist in maintaining public order and public services.”

The Chief Justice, in his ruling, wrote: “In this case, I have been concerned to avoid granting an injunction to restrain action that might be construed to be civic and/or political action which falls without the scope of the Labour Relations Act.

“However, I am satisfied that the scope of relief sought is indeed narrowly focused and aimed to prevent the withdrawal of labour which, it seems to me to be very strongly arguable, constitutes a breach of section 34 of the Act, in circumstances where it has no connection to a labour dispute.

“And although the inciting words complained of are not explicitly directed towards union members alone, it seems clear that calling on persons to withdraw labour is very arguably contrary to the Act, whether the persons called upon to withdraw labour are unionised or not.”

Lawyer Tim Marshall, who is not involved in the civil proceedings between the Bermuda Government and the union, said the granting of the injunction meant the protests appeared, on the face of it, to be unlawful.

“It is hard to see on what basis the unions could argue that their strike is lawful in these particular circumstances,” he added. “There is no employment dispute between any employee or employer.”

Mr Furbert told protesters on Monday that there was “talk” of the Royal Bermuda Regiment being deployed to assist police with the demonstrations outside Parliament.

But Governor George Fergusson said it was not expected to have any public order involvement in the protests. Its soldiers are on a regular 72-hour “notice to move”, according to its website.

Mr Fergusson, the Regiment’s Commander-in-Chief, told this newspaper: “The Royal Bermuda Regiment has always had a public order remit within its mission but there is no current expectation that it will be embodied or deployed.”

Assistant police commissioner Antoine Daniels also quashed rumours that overseas military assistance had been summoned to assist the Bermuda Police Service with the protests.

“These rumours are not true, as the BPS’s overarching principle of policing public protests is to facilitate free speech while protecting the rights of everyone,” he said. “Where the police are required to intervene during a public protest, they will do so using the least intrusive and coercive law enforcement measures possible to resolve issues that arise.”

The police did not answer a question on whether they were investigating possible breaches of the Labour Relations Act 1975 and the Parliament Act 1957, which outlaws interfering or attempting to interfere with either House of the legislature.

The BIU did not respond to a request for comment about the injunction by press time.

• To read Mr Fahy’s affidavit to the court, click on the PDF under “Related Media”