By Stephen Breen Shadow Home Affairs Minister Michael Dunkley yesterday slammed Premier Jennifer for using proposals which have not even passed into law to compensate former Club Med workers.

He accused Ms Smith of "over-stepping her authority'' in using the tabled Employment 2000 Act to pay 11 workers at the St. George's property $88,000 severance pay.

And he questioned whether the Premier was using this as a "political pay-off'' to ensure Progressive Labour Party members in her constituency support her if she is challenged for the party leadership at the PLP conference next week.

Mr. Dunkley said the workers had a dispute with Club Med, not the Government.

And he suggested it could open the door to other groups of laid-off workers seeking compensation from the tax-payer.

The workers were kept on after the hotel closed in 1988 and made redundant in 1997.

The Premier announced last Wednesday that "in the spirit of the tabled Employment Act 2000'' the former Club Med employees "would be treated as if the Act were already law''.

She said she had consulted with Works and Engineering, which is the landlord of the property, and there was no obstacle to the workers being paid from part of the sell-off of fixtures and equipment at the hotel.

She added: "Government agreed that the funds could be provided from the contingency fund and a supplementary request will be brought to the legislature when the House of Assembly reconvenes.'' Mr. Dunkley said he made no criticism of the workers, but said they were hired to do temporary work and after Club Med withdrew from Bermuda they had no legal obligation to pay them.

He said: "Why then is the tax-payer being burdened with an additional $88,000 expense? "How can Government use a draft piece of legislation that has not passed the House to make a decision? "The legislation could be withdrawn or amended. It is not at the present time law! "The Premier and the Minister of Finance (Eugene Cox) have overstepped their authority and responsibility by paying the workers out of the public purse.

This is not a Government liability.

"In any event, if it was, the PLP has always maintained the position that they would not pay out of public funds without an appropriation from the House of Assembly. At this point this has not been done.

"One has to wonder if this is a political ploy? Is this a political pay-off by the Premier to St. George constituents to ensure votes in the upcoming party conference? "The decision is manifestly irresponsible behaviour by the people entrusted with the public purse.

"Furthermore, this action opens the PLP Government up to an approach from any other former employee of a closed business in the hope of similar consideration. With precedent being set, how can Government say no?'' TOURISM TOU