They will do what they got to do. If they can work overtime they will do it and if they have to go home to look after their children, that's what they'll do, regardless of the ruling.

"No judge can tell you to leave your children unattended. If they (Stevedoring Services) want to take us anywhere they want to, they can just do that.'' When asked if this would place his members in contempt of court, he replied: "That's not contempt of court. That's contempt of ignorance on the part of the judge.'' Stevedoring Services' lawyer Alan Dunch said he expected to be instructed to take the union to court for contempt if there were any further breaches of the injunction, which Mr. Justice Meerabux upheld, prohibiting general overtime bans on Hamilton Docks.

He said if Mr. Burgess's comments were correct, it showed that he and the union continued to misunderstand the issue.

"The issue has never been compulsory overtime. It was whether or not the union conduct was unlawful. The judge found the union's conduct was unlawful,'' said Mr. Dunch.

"I think it is regrettable that they have chosen to appeal because all it does is continue the uncertainty that exists with respect to the ongoing operations of the docks.

"Having said that, I'm satisfied Mr. Justice Meerabux's judgment is correct and, in my opinion, it will be upheld by the Court of Appeal.

"More importantly, the effect of that judgment is that the injunction of 1998 continues in place and the union, if it is to abide by the law, must henceforth comply with the terms of that injunction unless and until the Court of Appeal revokes that decision.

"As a result, the terms of the injunction render it unlawful for the union to impose any general bans, with the result that the workers will be expected to work the hours which they have contracted to work, including such overtime hours as they agree to provide, pursuant to the terms of their individual contract as well as the union negotiated collective agreement.

"If the union fails to adhere to the terms of the injunction in the same way it has done in the past, I anticipate Stevedoring Services will instruct me to resurrect the contempt proceedings with a view to having the Supreme Court punish the union for such contempt. I sincerely hope the union does not precipitate such a situation.'' After a three day hearing, Mr. Justice Meerabux upheld an injunction obtained by Stevedoring Services in 1998 which banned general overtime bans at Hamilton Docks.

He said dockers were under a "contractual duty'' to do a reasonable amount of overtime in relation to contractual work.

Mr. Burgess yesterday criticised the way Mr. Justice Meerabux conducted the case. "The lawyer for Stevedoring Services and the judge acknowledged that overtime is not compulsory yet in his ruling he is saying that overtime is compulsory,'' said Mr. Burgess.

"He says if you are required by a manager to do overtime it is compulsory.

"He also alludes to industrial action short of a strike. That was abolished in England in 1974 and they don't use that no more. That judge made an error.

I was very uneasy about his conduct.'' He said Mr. Justice Meerabux prevented union members from attending after the Press was allowed in and stopped BIU lawyer Delroy Duncan asking certain questions.

"Overtime is not compulsory anywhere in the world,'' he continued. "The only cases, say in the UK, where overtime is compulsory is in time of national crisis and emergency.

"Even on the docks, only certain items are based on essential services and that's done based on nine to five. Anything over that is not a dispute. That's your time.''