industry dispute.

In a five-page decision, the court recognised that no collective bargaining exists between the Bermuda Industrial Union and the Pink Beach Club.

The decision places the authority of the highest court in the land against arguments that a legal relationship continues to exist between the BIU and the hotel industry.

In doing so, it overturned a decision by former Chief Justice Sir James Astwood and rejected as "unreasonable'' the Labour Minister's handling of the matter.

Pink Beach lawyer Mr. Alan Dunch last night said he was delighted with his "big win.

"For the industry it means the issue of a defunct collective bargaining agreement is dead and buried forever,'' he said.

BIU leader Mr. Ottiwell Simmons MP said the court's decision "is very dangerous as I see it. People's rights are being put into jeopardy because employers can do what they want.'' And Labour Minister the Hon. Irving Pearman, who was roundly criticised in the court's decision, said he wanted to study it with lawyers before making a formal statement. However, an appeal to the Privy Council was "quite possible.'' The Pink Beach dispute became the biggest test of whether the union still has a legal relationship with hotels stemming from their 1988-1991 collective bargaining agreement.

In February 1991, the hotels terminated the agreement.

The dispute surfaced when the hotel moved to fire worker Mr. Perry Goater. The union appealed to the Minister saying the hotel had not honoured the grievance procedure as set out in the collective bargaining agreement.

Mr. Pearman referred the dispute to the Essential Industries Disputes Settlement Board asking it to first determine whether a collective agreement existed between the two parties.

Pink Beach argued in the Supreme Court to halt the referral, but Sir James rejected it.

Yesterday's court decision was based on Pink Beach's appeal against the Sir James ruling. The Labour Minister was represented by Crown counsel Mr. Phillip Holder.

Mr. Justice Henry, who penned the court's decision, said the Minister referred the Pink Beach issue to his Essential Industries Board two weeks after it had ruled on the "same question'' between the union and Grotto Bay Hotel.

That ruling found that the collective bargaining agreement between hotels and the BIU had been terminated in February, 1991 and never re-instated.

Mr. Henry noted that the Minister made the referral without attempting to appeal the Board's Grotto Bay decision.

"If the hope was to obtain two conflicting decisions from the Board, that can hardly have been designed to carry out the express intention of the Act to `fairly and peacefully resolve disputes' in the hotel industry.

"On the other hand, no useful purpose would be served by seeking confirmation by the Board of its decision.'' "In the circumstances, the Minister's action appears sufficiently unreasonable...'' Mr. Dunch said the court's ruling meant the message was clear the Minister must "act reasonably and not keep sending some issue back to the Board time and again in the hope that it gives him an answer he'll like.'' Mr. Simmons said he was concerned that Mr. Pearman did not have good enough legal advice to effectively argue the case.

"I'm not satisfied,'' he said.

And he questioned whether the Court's decision was based on false premises in that it accepted Pink Beach's case on the basis of a decision concerning Grotto Bay.

Mr. Alan Dunch.