moved—

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved—

He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make a long second reading speech on this Bill, because hon. members will remember that it was introduced into the House last year as a result of the recommendation of the Industrial Board that investigated the disturbances on the Witwatersrand after the troubles of 1922. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee which went fully into the matter and took a volume of evidence, which was published and is in the hands of hon. members. The Bill was reported to the House unanimously by the Select Committee, but on account of the shortness of time towards the end of the session, the Bill was not proceeded with. I think it was perhaps an advantage that we did not proceed last year, because it gave us an opportunity of gauging the feeling of both employers and employees right through the Union during the recess, and I may say that representations were freely made by both sections with regard to the provisions of this Bill, and, to a certain extent, some of their objections have been met, and I can safely say that, perhaps with a few minor details, the parties concerned are satisfied with the provisions of this Bill. The main object of the Bill is to provide voluntary machinery—voluntary—for allowing each industry to settle its own disputes in its own way. It is a method of providing self-help to these industries. It is intended to give them the power to meet from time to time, all voluntarily, to discuss all their affairs round a table and in that way to prevent disputes from arising. That is provided under the provisions of the council—the industrial councils—some of which already exist in the country and are working well. I am particularly referring to the council in the printing industry and another one in the building industry, which, on the whole, are doing very good service indeed. It is on the lines of the report which we have seen elsewhere, which are known as Whitley Councils. That is a council which will meet from time to time under their own chairman and attend to the business of a particular industry. Then there is a second provision, that is for the settlement of disputes in those industries where there is no general council. In a number of smaller industries it may not be considered advisable to have these general councils, which are elected, and which will meet whether there are disputes or not. There may be industries in which there is no Whitley or no general council and yet a dispute arises. Well, then, they can apply to the Minister for the appointment of a conciliation board. The board will be appointed ad hoc for that particular dispute and that dispute only, and the Bill provides for the necessary provisions with regard to that. I want to emphasize again that up to this point there is no compulsion on either side, and the findings of such a council or of the board are binding only to the extent that the parties agree to be bound by them. And the objection has sometimes been raised, and I daresay will be raised in this House, that we should go further and that we should make the findings of such a council obligatory and enforce them by law. Our experience has been that it is impossible to do that. It is futile to put statutes on the book and not to enforce them afterwards. We should only weaken the force of the laws of the country if we were to attempt to do the impossible. The second way in which disputes are attempted to be overcome is by giving time for reflection. The first is for putting up machinery by which they can discuss differences and the second is by giving time for reflection. If notice is given of an alteration in the terms of employment which affect the whole section of employees, a month’s notice must be given, and within a fortnight of that month they can apply for a conciliation board, and within a month the findings of the board must be given. During that period you have time to reflect and time to bring the two parties together before war is declared—for after all a lockout or strike is an industrial war, but before war is declared the parties should come together and talk it over and discuss whether war cannot be avoided. If war is to be declared the law does not say that you cannot strike or effect a lock-out, for that would be futile. All the world over you cannot prevent people from abstaining from work. You want to see by their coming together why cannot the cards be put on the table. When the war has gone on for a little time they begin to meet, but it is too late then. We have before us the example of what happened in England a few days ago. The railway strike continued for a week and the final result was conciliation and the parties came round the table and settled the dispute. This Bill is an attempt to get this consideration of the difficulty before a declaration of war, when the temper of the men is not yet hardened. I do not believe that an attempt of this kind will altogether avoid industrial upheaval or industrial wars, but it will make the industries work smoothly and will perhaps succeed in avoiding the vast number of difficulties which otherwise could not be avoided. There are two departures in this Bill from the voluntary basis, and I think it is right that I should draw attention to them. They were not in this Bill as introduced originally in 1923, but were inserted by the Select Committee. And I should like to say a word in regard to these two points. The Bill departs from the voluntary principle, first, where an industry by a conciliation board or industrial council laid down certain conditions of that industry, and they applied to the Minister, and the Minister is satisfied that this council represents the vast majority of the people represented in that industry, he may extend that finding to the whole industry, and to those who were not represented at the council. It was pointed out in the evidence before the Select Committee that it would be possible for a small minority to upset the good work done by the council. With the safeguard that the Minister should be satisfied on that point and employers and employees are in favour of this finding, they should apply to the Minister, and, if the Minister is satisfied, then he may extend it to the whole industry. That is one departure from the voluntary principle. Then there is the essential services of municipalities. There we say if a conciliation board has been asked for and has failed they must submit to arbitration. Now, why? There are two reasons for this, and I think it is right that the House should understand why the departure is made. The first reason is, by the law of 1914, the Riotous Assemblies Act, no employees engaged in essential services may strike. They are prohibited from using the strike weapon in settling their disputes. No employee engaged by a municipal authority supplying gas, light, etc., may strike. It was pointed out that if you enforce this law and have this prohibition, then the door is closed to these men, and they are in the hands of their employers. The second reason is, if the municipal authority fails to supply these essential services, then the Government may step in and supply them. This was the case in 1920 in Johannesburg. The Government had to step in there, and we now say if the local authorities called upon to perform these essential services fail to do so then the State should step in and do it for them. The situation was saved in Johannesburg by the technical societies coming in. But the technical societies did not like it. The result is that if we have this power asked for, we would not be in as serious a position as was the case during the strike on the Witwatersrand. The State should provide some additional means of settling a dispute of that kind. You say to these men: “You may not declare an industrial war, and if the services cease then the State will step in,” therefore you must arbitrate. It is also a departure from the voluntary principle, and it is only to that amount, and for these two special reasons that it is inserted in the Bill. I think under the circumstances that they are justified. I have left out of the Bill the clause dealing with the ballot. To say that the people should ballot when they do not want to ballot is futile. On the whole, I have come to the conclusion that it is useless to say “You must ballot” when people do not want to ballot. In conclusion, I wish to say that the atmosphere is calmer now than in 1923 or at any other previous time, and I think this is the time for a Bill like this to be put on the statute book. I know how difficult it is to get legislation of this kind passed. After an upheaval people say, “Yes, we must have something to deal with these things,” but after a calm time people think such upheavals will never happen again. That is not my experience. I hope the House will agree to this Bill, which is for the purpose of bringing parties together, and to give them a fair hearing. I hope it will not be found necessary to have a long debate on this Bill. We have the Bill as it came from the Select Committee with one or two alterations here and there, and we can discuss these alterations when we deal with the Bill in Committee. I move the second reading.

A lot of members in this House are interested in this class of legislation, and I personally am sorry that the Bill had not been passed ten years ago, whereby much of the industrial strife we have passed through would have been avoided. I should like to pass a few remarks on some of the changes made from the unanimous report brought forward by the Committee last year. Then men of all parties, when feeling was running pretty high, framed a Bill which they agreed with almost unanimously. I thought the Minister would have hesitated a long time before he altered that Bill, but I see there are three important changes. Some people may consider them trivial, but from my knowledge of industry they are very important matters. I speak, as hon. members know, with some considerable experience. We started, I believe, in Committee by agreeing that we could not provide in the Bill for strikes of unorganized people without any official heads to appeal to, but we thought we might be able to provide machinery whereby organized bodies could settle their differences. In this Bill, I see, provision is made for the appointment of conciliation boards at the request of any number of employees who are not members of any organization. What will it lead to if the provision suggested by the Minister is passed and he accedes to the request of setting up several conciliation boards for different factories or workshops in any town in the Union? We shall have employers who differ from the award of a conciliation board applying for one of their own. I can picture this happening in Cape Town, where I notice a large number of furniture and other manufactories. One firm and then another would apply for a conciliation board, and a different set of conditions for each workshop would result. What we want to aim at in industrial legislation is uniformity of conditions of employment in the same industry. Everyone knows of cases where conditions are dissimilar in the same industry in the same district, and where this exists you can look for trouble in the future. The more uniformity as regards conditions, the more likely you are to avoid trouble. I do not want dissimilar conditions encouraged by the Bill, by which any little group of employees or employers can apply for a conciliation board and bring about dissimilar conditions in the same place. My second point is in regard to the proviso that has been added to section 4 regarding the establishment and constitution of conciliation boards. The Minister may take steps for the appointment of such board—

The Minister must know from experience he is cutting out all piece workers, and this includes tailors, but the Minister has saved himself somewhat by the last few words. The Transvaal Act made a special provision for this.

Tailors must be affected by the Transvaal Bill.

I am proud to state that I have taken part in some 17 strikes in this country, and at least 11 of them have been connected with the very matters which he now proposes to exclude from the review of conciliation boards. Disputes over victimization of trade unionists or the class of persons to be employed are beyond their scope. Above all things we should not want to destroy the balance or the equity of this Bill. Clause 12 makes it illegal for any person to strike until the matter in dispute has been referred to an industrial council or conciliation board. It will be illegal for an employee to strike, but what provision is made for discussion or settlement of the dispute if it arises out of any of these fruitful sources. Under the clause he cannot strike, he cannot cease work, but no other machinery is provided? Surely this is unfair. We have taken away the right to strike without negotiation and at the same time taken away the machinery for negotiation. I do not think anyone will say that that is equitable, and I think the Minister will be well advised if he deletes the proviso. I see also that he has deleted Clause 22 in the old Bill. In that clause it was stated—

We on these benches are most anxious to help the Bill, and to obtain better working conditions between the workers and the employers, but I must confess that this Bill would be worthless to trades unions with the clause out. The success or failure of this measure depends upon the degree of organization on both sides. If employers are to be allowed to make it a condition of employment that a man must not belong to a trade union, then the purposes of this Bill will be defeated. One of the principal reasons why there has been so many disputes in the past is possibly due to the inexperience of trades unionists in this country. There has not been enough trades unionism. [An Hon. Member: “What about Australia?”] It has been the same experience all over the world. The position is this: that when you have an old established and experienced trades union, there is someone to go to, who has authority to negotiate. In the late Rand trouble, we had too many sections, too many trades unions and too many leaders. It became a rabble. Trades unions have now grasped the principle that there should be but one body which should be recognised as the responsible body to give instructions. In the past too it has not unfrequently happened that a man when applying for work, has been asked if he is a member of a trades union. For years in some industries it was the usual condition of employment that a man should not belong to a trades union. There are rumours on the Witwatersrand that such a thing is not unknown on the mines there at present. I do not know if this is so, but I am informed it is a fact. We are out to stop that in the interests of industrial peace, and I think the clause with reference to trades unions should be re-inserted. With the exception of the one or two points I have raised, and which I hope will be sympathetically accepted by the Minister, I have nothing more to say at the present stage.

I am sorry to say I do not see my way clear to vote for this Bill, and I will tell the House why. Personally, I am very much in favour of conciliation between employer and employees. I think in the present state of industries it is the only way that the position may improve. I shall do all I can at any time to assist in conciliation and conferences between employer and employee with regard to any matter connected with trade or industry, but I think that so far from encouraging conciliation by passing this resolution we shall be doing our best to prevent it. It seems to me to be a contradiction of terms to speak of legislation to promote conciliation. Unless conciliation is purely voluntary, sought by both sides, it is bound to fail. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), has said that we have too little trades unionism in the country. Personally I think that the trades unions are for the advantage of the employer and the employee; I think well organized trades unions are a great measure towards conciliation, and to the bringing about of a proper understanding between the employer and employee. I think the present state of industry would have been much worse were it not for the growth and development of trades unions. But this is not a Bill for the promotion of trades unions, but a Bill to prevent disputes and to settle disputes. So far as it deals with industrial councils, I am in favour of it. In them we have machinery to bring the employer and the employee together and to prevent any dispute arising. There I am entirely in favour of the principles of the Bill, but my concurrence with the terms of the Bill ceases when we come to the conciliation boards. I shall say why. First of all I would draw attention to the fact that this Bill deals with all trades, industries, and occupations (other than farming and Crown and Government administration. Why, if conciliation boards are good, and by the terms of this Bill are put forward and recommended for the general public, they are not also extended to Government departments and to farming industries and industries connected with farming I fail to understand. If the principle is good for the general public surely it is good for the others. Personally, I think the principle is bad for all. Now we come to the conciliation boards. The right hon. the Minister who introduced this Bill has told us that the industrial boards are purely voluntary. I must say I do not gather that from reading the terms of Clause 4, for an industrial board can be appointed at the request of one party to the dispute only.

That is the conciliation board.

That is the conciliation board, thank you. It can be appointed on the application of one party to the dispute only, the other party is then bound to come in, and attempt conciliation whether there is a conciliatory spirit or not. Now here again I depart from the consecutiveness of my argument to refer to proviso 4. That proviso includes all or any matters on which disputes are likely to arise. That is on questions of wages, engagement, suspension, dismissal. There is no conciliation allowed on these questions or provided for under this Bill, so that the large number of disputes which are likely to arise between employers and employees are left, as I think they should be left, to a voluntary settlement between the parties without the intervention of any legislation whatsoever. Now when a conciliation board is once appointed the board or an industrial council may under Clause 7 agree to abide by the decision of one or more arbitrators for the determination of such dispute, and any such agreement shall provide for an umpire and this award is then compulsory. Now I may point out that in this clause there is no provision made as to unanimity of the board, nor does it say by what majority the board must decide or agree to abide by the decision of an umpire; consequently, if there are two or three members of the board appointed by each party to the dispute it is quite possible that an arbitrator will be forced upon one party to the dispute when he is not willing to accept it. There again we get compulsion, no voluntary principle in this, but he is forced into the conciliation board against his will. When he is once there the board, or I presume, the majority of the board may compel him to abide by the award. Now, is that voluntary? We are told that this is a purely voluntary Bill; here is compulsion exercised in both of these. Then, not only is there compulsion upon the parties to the dispute but parties outside the dispute altogether are brought into it, because under Clause 9 any award by an arbitrator may be extended to persons who are no party to the dispute whatever, who have never been heard, and who have taken no part in any of the discussions before the conciliation board. There we have more compulsion, and I say that compulsion of this sort so far from promoting conciliation will only promote disputes. I think many of the other clauses are futile. Take, for instance, Clause 10, which provides that notice must be given of any alteration of the terms of employment. We have had that legislation in the Transvaal for some years and whom does it bind? It binds only the employers and never the employees. This section making it an offence to come out on strike before submitting the matter to the arbitration or discussion of the conciliation board has been law in the Transvaal for some years and we have seen dispute after dispute arise there; and this clause, or the similar terms in the present Act in the Transvaal, has been defied—[An Hon. Member: “Who started it?”] I am not saying that it was the mines or the miners who started, but that is not germane to my argument. My contention is that you can never enforce legislation of that sort, because it has been tried here and in other countries and it has been a failure. Why the hon. member said, in 1922 during the discussion on the riots in the Transvaal when I referred to that section, that it was a dead letter, and it has been a dead letter. It is impossible to enforce legislation of that kind and if it is impossible why should we put it on the statute book? We know we cannot enforce it; we know that no Government can enforce it and yet we solemnly legislate and persuade ourselves that we are providing machinery for conciliation when we know that it will not and cannot be used. Now we come to Clauses 11 and 12. Anyone employed on essential services is forbidden to go out on strike. That is all very well, but we have had that legislation in the Transvaal since 1914 and it has been defied not once but on many occasions and not a single man has been prosecuted under that section or anyone punished. What is the good of putting legislation of that kind on the statute book? You are not doing anything to promote conciliation; you are not helping to solve disputes between employers and employees by legislation of this sort. You are solemnly putting upon the statute book legislation which cannot and will not be applied.

What are you going to do?

I would certainly leave disputes of this sort to be settled by organized labour and organized employment and let them meet together. You cannot do anything more and no other step in my opinion will help to settle disputes between employer and employees. Now these are some of the reasons why I shall oppose this measure: because I do not think it will advance the position of the employees; I do not think it will improve the discipline of the industries; I do not think that many of the enactments in this Bill can be put into force, and I am certain that they never will be put into force. We are solemnly passing legislation and wasting our time here in putting upon the statute book an Act which will be inoperative.

This measure may not be all that one would desire in the way of setting up machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes, but as one who has taken some interest in this question and devoted a considerable part of last session to vastly improving this particular Bill, I am convinced at all events that this is a big step in the right direction. What hon. members who are opposed to anything in the nature of conciliatory methods in industrial disputes have to ask themselves is this: Whether we are to set up machinery in order that the various difficulties and differences that continually arise between employer and employed may be settled by reasonable methods, or whether we are, as in the past, to allow the situation in connection with industrial disputes to develop until the contestants desire to blow each other’s heads off. That is what the House has to ask itself. There is no legislation in South Africa at present to provide for the settlement of industrial troubles by reasonable methods. I do not know what class of employer the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) represents in this House, but his views are in conflict with many employers’ organizations. The employers in the building industry of South Africa are altogether in favour of a measure of this kind. The printing trade employers are also in favour of a Bill of this nature. Together with the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) I had the privilege of assisting to bring about in this country the first application of the outstanding recommendations submitted to the British Government in 1917 by the Whitley Council. That was the institution in South Africa of what is known as the National Industrial Council of the Printing and Newspaper Industry. I do not think there is another trade in South Africa can lay claim, shall I say, to a greater number of strikes than the printing trade. Why, at one time, before the establishment of their industrial council, the printers used to go on strike at least every other week-end. But let me tell the House that since the industrial council of the printing trade was established in 1919, there has not been one strike in the printing trade in South Africa.

Do you put that down to legislation?

No, I do not put that down to legislation, but I do put it down to the coming together of the employed and the employer to discuss their industrial difficulties, and similar machinery is provided for in this Bill to allow other industries to follow the example of the printing industry [An Hon. Member: “What is there to prevent them?”] And furthermore it gives the decisions arrived at in any industrial commission the force of law. This is exactly the point. The fair-dealing employers, and they are in a majority, the fair-dealing employers formed an organization and the trade unions in the printing trade became sufficiently strong that an unsuccessful strike was the exception. Consequently, it was necessary for the employers’ organization to adopt different methods, and the two sides of the printing industry came together in such a way that they were able to decide all their various matters for the better conduct of their trade. Of course, not all employers in the printing industry in South Africa belong to the Employers’ Association. Those employers who do not subscribe to the decisions arrived at by the National Industrial Council are able to go on their own sweet way and take no notice of the agreement. In this Bill it lays down that where the Minister is satisfied that the two sides of any industry forming an industrial council are sufficiently represented, then every man engaged in that industry will have to conform to the decisions arrived at by the council. Now, Sir, what could be fairer than that? The reason why the employers in the building trade are unable to treat their employees in the way they would desire is simply because of the unfair competition from employers who refuse to toe the line and abide by the decision of their more fair-minded fellow-men. Perhaps the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) would like to know the opinion of men who formed the commission that reported on the low grade mines in 1920. They were not labour men. I take it that the majority at all events were gentlemen prominent in the mining industry—at least on the employers’ side—and they had evidence given to them which upheld a scheme for the keeping together of the employer and employee. I would like to give the House the exact words of this commission, which reported to the House in 1920:

The creation of a feeling of better contentment all round. That has been the result of the establishment of an industrial council in the printing trade. I can speak from firsthand information and experience. This commission goes on to say that the advantages of improved relationship appear to have been recognized by the mining companies quite early in the war period. Quite early in the war period they were prepared to recognize improved relationship. What has altered the position? The mining industry of South Africa is not now prepared to recognize that trade unions and similar bodies have a right to some say in the conditions under which their members work. That used to be generally admitted. The report also states that evidence submitted both by mine managers and trade union representatives bore excellent testimony to the benefits mutually derived. A great deal could be said regarding the principle of this Bill, and the desirability of providing machinery whereby the employer and the employee can come together and discuss their differences. Mention has been made of the position in other countries, but in this connection I would just like to say that I am prepared to take the opinion of Mr. Justice Powers, who is the President of the Australian Arbitration Court, in preference to the opinion of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber). Justice Powers quite recently had occasion to give a vigorous retort to a league called the Single Purpose League of Australia, the members of which were out to try and do away with compulsory arbitration in that Dominion. Mr. Justice Powers says, among other things, that the Court has proved a failure to the employer who desires to get work done at a rate for which a worker would be compelled by starvation to work. The Court has been a success so far as fair-minded employers are concerned, but they could not pay more than the meanest employer engaged in competition with them would pay. Whatever agreement may be arrived at by an industrial council or conciliation board, it will bring the meanest employer into line, and no right-thinking, fair-dealing employer should in consequence have the slightest objection to this Conciliation Bill. Mr. Justice Powers goes on to say—

And here I should like to add that the idea is prevalent that this is a Bill desired only by trade unions. That is not so. Fair-minded employers also desire the Bill. I could read many extracts from evidence submitted to the Select Committee, showing how the building industry of South Africa, containing perhaps many of the fairest employers of South Africa, desire the Bill. Mr. Justice Powers also says that the Court by granting fair wages and humane conditions did more to prevent revolutionists from succeeding in their objects than any other institution in the Commonwealth. Now, I have had some experience of settling industrial troubles by reasonable methods. A strike, which lasted eleven weeks, took place in Pietermaritzburg some time ago, and after the employers and employees had been sitting in different buildings for over two months without any attempt to bring them together, successful efforts were initiated and resulted in a board being formed exactly similar to what is proposed in this Bill, and within two days a settlement was arrived at acceptable to both parties. I am surprised that there should be any objection at this time of day to a measure such as this, but notwithstanding, I feel the House will be behind the Minister in endeavouring to introduce machinery that will get away from the bad old days when industrial troubles were settled by methods which were neither good for the employees, the employers, or for the country at large.

I am rather glad that this measure has been introduced and I think the Government has given some evidence of their desire to deal fairly with a very important question, a question which concerns not alone the employer, but the employee, and if such a measure on the lines incorporated in this Bill had not been introduced into this House, then the Government would have been blamed for apathy and it would have been said that the interests of the workers as well as those of the employers had been neglected. Now I quite share the view, expressed by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber), that over-legislation is a bad thing, and I think all Governments, and perhaps our Government as well, are inclined to go a little too far in this direction, but I do not think that they can be charged with anything like that in respect of the measure that is now before the House. Because, after all is said and done, if you eliminate the word compulsion and you come down to bedrock, you are getting something in this Bill which may be calculated to encourage employer and employee to come together, and I consider that if that is so that a good and very practical thing will have been accomplished. There are one or two points which have been raised by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). I think these can be dealt with in Committee. But I do not agree with him when he says that Clause 22 should be reinserted This clause is after all a guarantee in many respects that essential services will be performed by men who are responsible. For instance, if you take the town councils, what do they find? We find that if a strike takes place, the whole organization of the town may be absolutely jeopardised; we find that we may be in a very parlous position; and I do think that in a case where a municipality desires to engage a town clerk, that it should be entitled to say that such a person shall not belong to a trade union. I shall tell the House why. Supposing there should be a strike. Surely you want one man, an executive officer, a man holding a high position to be at his post and quite independent of anybody. The fact of that man’s presence may not alone be useful to the town during the strike, but after as well, because it will make it possible for men to resume work without delay, and you can only do that by having an official who is not bound to any union, who, when the strike is over, can make it possible for men who have been out of work to get back to work very much quicker than otherwise could be the case. It prevents dislocation, very bad dislocation in the services of a municipality. And the same applies to other industries. I think if, when this Bill is in Committee, a little forbearance is shown, and indulgence extended, and a little consideration evidenced by members of the Labour Party of the House, in relation to essential services, whether it be in regard to municipalities or the mining or any other industry, it will certainly facilitate the passage of the Bill, and it will tend to prove that the same good feeling has been shown by those members, as has been demonstrated by the Government in the generous measure now before the House.

By ’n dertigjarige ondervinding wat ek het aan die Rand, dink ek elkeen moet baie bly wees dat die Minister die wet ingedien het. As jy in aanmerking neem wat al plaas gevind het deur stakings, dan moet elkeen in die Huis bly wees dat die Minister tenminste ’n poging maak om ’n Raad te kry om sodanige sake te skik. Dis nie alleen in die belang van die werker nie, maar ook in die belang van die werkgewer en in die belang van die hele land. Bedink vir ’n oomblik wanneer daar stakings plaas vind, dis nie alleen die werker nie of die werkgewer wat daaronder ly, maar die hele land ly daaronder. Dink maar, wat was Johannesburg in 1922 voor die staking was en wat vandag? Besigheid is in duige geslaan en alles tot stilstand gekom. Ek het al jare lank gedink, dis die plig van die Huis om ’n wet neer te lê om masjienerie te kry waardeur skikkinge getref word vóórdat die stakinge plaas vind. My ondervinding is, dat wanneer verstandige mense saam in onderhandeling tree, dit heel gemakkelik is om ’n skikking te tref en wanneer ons wetgewing van die aard het maak dit dit vir sulke mense maklik om stakinge te voorkom. Wel is daar enige besware aangevoer deur die edele lid vir Jeppes (de hr. Sampson), maar die wet kan in komitee waar nodig verander word, dit kan waar nodig verbeter word. Maar ek hoop, die hele Huis gaan eenparig stem voor die wet, nie alleen in die belang van die werker en werkgewer, maar in die belang van die hele land. Die edele lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber) wens hierdie wet te oponeer. Dit laat my dink aan ’n mens wat sê, ons kan dokters maar afskaf, die mense gaan in die eind daarom tog dood. Nee, laat ons een poging maak. Ons industrië brei meer en meer uit en word van jaar tot jaar groter en ons werkers en werkgevers word meer en meer, en dit is daarom noodsakelik geword om wetgewing van hierdie aard op die wetboek te hê.

I did not intend to take part in this debate, as I have not anything very special to say on this Bill, but one or two statements have been made during the debate which I should like to comment on. It was said that the report of the Select Committee in bringing forward this Bill was a unanimous one. Well, I should like to explain that the Bill now before the House is a very different measure indeed from the one which was brought into the House by the right hon. the Minister last session, and which passed the second reading. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee of which I was a member and we took a lot of evidence on the subject of the Bill, but before the work was finished, a new Bill entirely was brought before the Committee by one of the members of the Committee, and it was that Bill which is now before the House. I did not approve of the alterations made by the new Bill, although I did not vote against the acceptance of the Committee’s report, which was due to the fact that I was absent from its last meeting. The Bill now before the House has not had the consideration which it should have had. The Bill which we had before us last session was a different Bill and was a great deal milder. On that account I feel some difficulty in voting for this Bill. I am in favour of conciliation. But I think the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) put the case very clearly. If you have conciliation it should mean that both parties must be willing to work together, and the arguments used by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North (Mr. Strachan), are entirely in support of the arguments used by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber), and really are arguments against his own case. There are one or two points in this Bill which I think are improvements. For instance Clause 10 removes some of the objections which I had to the old Bill, by making it possible to take certain things away from the Conciliation Board. But my particular difficulty on this Bill is Clause 24, under which an employer means “any person employing two or more employees.” If you carry that out, it will cause a tremendous lot of difficulty. I do not see how it can be worked satisfactorily or with any degree of success. I do not want to go into details, but it strikes me that if a man has only two employees, and if he has to bring into effect all the machinery of this Bill to settle some dispute between them, it will mean tremendous expense, and I am very much afraid that it will destroy discipline altogether. Another point which I object to is to bring under Clause 24, the definition of an employee as one who does supervision. I do not think that that can be right, and that people who do supervision should come under that definition. On these grounds I am doubtful about the advisability of voting for the second reading of the Bill, but I hope that when the second reading is passed, the Minister will see his way to remove some of these objections which are not felt by me alone, but are shared by many employers of labour.

I have heard with a great deal of surprise the objections which have come from this side of the House, because when the Bill was before the House last session, it was almost unanimously approved of. There is no doubt that a great many employers of labour heartily welcome this Bill. The building industry welcomes it as a step in the right direction. As hon. members know, the building industry has for many years been dealing with disputes by means of a system of joint boards. They have, however, not had the power of carrying many of their decisions into effect, for the reason that they represented only seventy or eighty per cent. of the building trade, with a result that men who were anxious and willing to take advantage of unfair conditions were able to undercut, and as has been stated by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North (Mr. Strachan), it meant that the wages paid and the conditions observed by the men who stood out of the associations, were the terms which finally had to be agreed upon. The Builders’ Association welcome this Bill, as they look upon it as a charter whereby they will be able to bring these people into the association. The Minister will then have the power, if he thinks fit, and if the members of any association comprise a big majority of the total of the members in the trade, to apply the decisions to the whole of the industry. I am very glad that the Minister has gone into the matter during the recess, as many people have been looking forward to the introduction of this Bill.

I had not intended to speak on this measure, but in view of the attacks made by the Minister’s own supporters on this Bill. I should like to say a few words in support of the measure. There have been at least two speeches made against the Bill, and it seems that there is no section opposed to the Bill except a portion of the Minister’s own supporters. It is very difficult to understand at this stage, seeing the serious difficulties which the country has passed through, why anyone should say that he is opposed to the principle of the Bill. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) says that in the past disputes have been settled in a voluntary way, and that therefore there is no necessity for legislation. Of course if you have your existing machinery in certain trades, then those trades have no great need of the Bill. But there are hundreds of industries which are not so well organized as, for instance, the printing industry or the building industry. Those that are well organized will not worry the Minister a great deal. But there are large numbers of trades, which, though they are organized, are not so well organized that they have their Whitley Councils. I am glad to hear that all members agree that organization is the best thing for the country, organization in trades unions and organizations of employers, because collective bargaining is the only thing that can settle industrial disputes. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), has pointed out certain directions in which the Bill can be amended in Committee, and the suggestions he has made deserve the most careful consideration. I could not understand the point of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber), when he talked of compulsion. I cannot find any compulsion here. This is a voluntary Bill. There is provision of course for men who are engaged in essential services, but then the compulsion is already on them not to strike, and this Bill does not put it on them. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) should be the last man in the House to argue that in regard to essential services men should be allowed to do as they like. I should have thought that he would have said the very opposite. All the Minister says here is: “Seeing you deprived them of the right to strike, at any rate you must provide machinery for them for settling their disputes.” Sometimes they may strike, and they will incur the penalties of the law, and therefore the Minister says: “Well I shall give you other machinery; you have to settle it by means of arbitration, but then you will have to abide by the award.” If that is compulsion then many of us will be glad to see that compulsion. I think the Bill in its present form can be improved. I would not have risen on this matter, because I thought the House was in general agreement of the Bill, but I rose because the Minister has lost some of his old supporters, and now he has gained at least one new one.

On the whole I am satisfied with the reception which the Bill has received, and I am gratified that the hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander), has come to my assistance. I think he has not only my interest in view—but that is a different matter. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) asks why are the farmers and the Government service not included. The reason is because they are not organized, neither are their employees organized. As regards the public servants, they have conciliation machinery provided by Parliament as in the Railway Act, and they do not require this special legislation, and the legislation we have put up for our own employees we are putting up now for other employees. That is sufficient answer for that argument. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), took exception to the clause which says that disciplinary matters in regard to individuals, should also be included. He seems to have lost sight of the fact that Clause 4 and Clause 10 hang together. Under Clause 10 no strike can take place until conciliation has been attempted, and you must give a month’s notice of any alteration of the terms of employment. Now in the existing Transvaal Act provision is made for alterations which affects at least ten employees. We have taken away that limitation of ten and unless you stipulate some other limitation you give it to the power of any one individual to call for a conciliation board. It seems that that would destroy the power which ought to be in the hands of any management of a concern. In Clause 10 we put in a safeguard that no individual case can be the subject of a conciliation board unless it involves a matter of principle. If it does that it can be included. In fairness to the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), when we discussed the terms of employment he said that terms of employment do not apply to individual cases. If that applies in Clause 10 it should also apply in Clause 4, where you constitute your conciliation board. The other points which have been raised can be discussed if necessary in Committee.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 4th February.

moved—

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved—

He said: This is eminently a Bill which ought to be investigated by some Select Committee of this House, because it deals with individual cases, and it is not possible for the House as a whole to go into details of it. I therefore propose after the second reading to move that it be referred to the Native Affairs Committee. The object of the Bill is a twofold one. It seeks to legalise certain acts and arrangements and exchanges in regard to the land of the Natal Native Trust, which have been gone into from time to time. Before 1912 the Natal Native Trust had the power to do these things without the intervention of Parliament.

What is the Natal Native Trust?

All the native land in Natal is vested in the Natal Native Trust (i.e., the Government), and in the Act of 1912 no land can be affected unless by a special Act of Parliament. These five transactions have been found necessary by the Natal Native Trust. They now come to Parliament and explain the reason and ask: will you give your sanction? The details of the Bill can be gone into by the Native Affairs Committee. That is the first object of the Bill. The second object is in Clause 4, which provides for the setting aside of a narrow belt on the south coast of Natal for European location as a health resort. Some time ago some fifty acres were set aside and this land is leased to Europeans. But the Natal Trust is now prepared to go further and make a further section of the coast available for residents. This clause gives the Natal Trust this power. The land along the coast is of very little value, but for residential sites it is valuable, but this matter can be gone into by the Committee on Native Affairs.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

moved—

seconded.

Would it not be better for this Bill to go to the Committee on Crown Lands?

No, it is entirely native land, under the Natal Native Trust, and the interests of those involved are those of the natives and not of the landowners.

Motion put and agreed to.