laid upon the Table—

moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

having announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on the Wine and Spirits Control Bill, viz.: The Prime Minister, Messrs. Heatlie, de Waal, Capt. P. S. Cilliers, Messrs. Roux, Jordaan, Pearce, Nicholls and Brink.

Ek wil net daarop wys, dat die edele lid vir Worcester (de hr. Heatlie) direkteur is van die maatskappy wat betrokke is by die Wetsontwerp. Onder die omstandighede is dit miskien nie wenslik nie dat hy lid is van die Selekt Komitee.

Ek dink die edele lid is ’n bietjie voorbarig met die vraag. Die beste sal wees om dit oor te laat aan die Gekose Komitee en as die Gekose Komitee hierdie punt opbring, sal ik my regeling gee. Dit mag wees dat die edele lid vir Worcester (de hr. Heatlie) die Komitee nooit sal bywoon nie, of daar nooit sal stem nie en dit is alleenig wanneer hy daar stem, wanneer hy die Komitee bywoon, dat hierdie vraag opgebring kan word. Ek is bereid om die algemene praktyk aan te wys, maar dit sal beter wees om die saak oor te laat aan die Selekt Komitee, om dit op te bring.

The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) has asked the question whether the fact, that Mr. Heatlie is a director of the Kooperatieve Wijnbouwers Vereniging van Zuid Afrika Beperkt., does not preclude him from sitting on the Select Committee. The question as to whether Mr. Heatlie has a direct pecuniary interest in the Bill is one which can properly be raised when Mr. Heatlie desires to take part or vote on any matter before the Committee or the House. I think the question somewhat premature, and the hon. member should leave it open until it is raised in the Select Committee, when I shall be prepared to give a ruling, if asked.

I beg to move, as an unopposed motion—

It is scarcely more than a week since this House had to deplore the departure of one of its members, Mr. van der Merwe, one of the youngest members of this House who had still all before him, and who had the promise of a great career in store. On this occasion the House has to deplore the departure of one of the great figures in this House; a gentleman who had attained to very high honours, very high office, to very great distinction, and had rendered very great services both to the old Colony of Natal and later on to the Union of South Africa. It is unnecessary for me to refer in particular to the great public career of Sir George Leuchars. Hon. members know the facts. For a long number of years he was a great figure in Natal. In the native wars which arise, and have arisen, in this country from time to time, he played a leading and distinguished part. In the legislature of Natal he was one of the leading figures. In the Government of Natal he also played a distinguished part. When Union came about, he was one of the members elected in this House, and he has sat continuously in this House from 1910 to the present. He was one of the original members of the Union Government, and in all these capacities for a long lifetime he has rendered service of great distinction to South Africa as a whole. But, Mr. Speaker, on an occasion like this it is not only the statesman, the great public man, we remember, but we all knew him more intimately in another way, and that as George Leuchars the man. And even where there was a difference of opinion on the public aspects of his career, we here as colleagues of his and members of the House all respected and admired the man. On this side of the House we deplore the loss, the irrearable loss, of one of the bulwarks of the South African Party. A man like him you do not replace for many years. That is the party point of view, which does not weigh with us on an occasion like this. As I say, we remember the man, one who was a man indeed, straight and honourable to a degree; a gentleman of the staunchest political convictions, who loved his friends and stood by them through thick and thin, but at the same time could retain the respect of his opponents. I am sure he was respected, if not beloved, all over this House, oven by those who did not see eye to eye with him in the great public controversies of this country. And even where he for the moment became the centre of one of the great public controversies of our public life, he was there in a modest way, and his first and foremost desire was to get out of it as soon as possible and get into a less conspicuous position. All through, his character has been one of great unselfishness, of sacrifice and of doing his public duty in the way which he saw clear, and of rendering service to the country he loved deeply. I think if ever there was a member who was beloved in this House, and who had rendered great service to this country, and who through it all retained great simplicity of character, great modesty of character, it was this gentleman whose loss we deplore today, and who died very suddenly and unexpectedly last night. The least we can do is to express our sympathy to Lady Leuchars and her family in the great loss that they have sustained.

Mnr. Speaker, ek wens die voorstel van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister te sekondeer. Ek dink dat elkeen van ons pynlik getref was vanoggend, toe ons so onwerwag sien dat die edele lid uit ons midde was weggeneem. Hy het onteenseggelik sy dienste beskikbaar gestel by grote en ernstige geleenthede van ons land en ek dink een en almal van ons ondersteun en sekondeer die voorstel van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister tans hier voor die Huis, as verdiende hulde vir wat hy gedoen het vir ons vaderland, SuidAfrika. Ek sekondeer.

On behalf of my friends I would like to associate myself with every word of testimony which the Prime Minister has spoken. They reflect the deep feelings of friendship and deep feelings of profound sorrow and grief which we all feel on the death of Sir George Leuchars. The Prime Minister has said truly that whatever our differences, throughout Sir George Leuchars’ political career in this House, if he had many opponents, he had no enemies. All of us regarded him with feelings of personal affection and those feelings are reflected in what we are now doing in making this last testimony to the services he rendered to the country in this House, and I wish to associate myself in the fullest measure with the vote of condolence.

Motion put and agreed to; hon. members rising.

I now beg to move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

Proceedings suspended at 2.45 p.m., and resumed at 8.10 p.m.

I would like to ask the Minister to give some further consideration to the question of deleting this proviso. The only argument which I heard from the Minister was that he did not want to allow trivial matters to be dealt with by a conciliation board. I submit that that is amply met by sub-section (2) of Clause 10. That sub-section lays down that the employer shall give a month’s notice of any alteration in the terms of employment, and if within fourteen days a number of employees differ from the employer, they can apply for a conciliation board. But if the Minister refuses to appoint the board, they take effect immediately. I contend that this Clause entirely disposes of the argument which has been used that conciliation boards may be used for trival matters. On the other hand we are asked to accept this proviso, which I pointed out to the Committee, will stultify the Act and halve its usefulness.

I would also appeal to the Minister to give this amendment, which has been put forward by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), his most serious consideration and accept the amendments. We are dealing with a Conciliation Bill, and if we want a Conciliation Bill passed this session, that Bill should be as broad in its view as possible. We have looked forward with a great deal of anticipated satisfaction to see a Bill like this put on the statute book. It has been argued by a good many of the members on the other side of the House, that if you take out these words, you will have conciliation hoards set up for trifling matters. Is the assessment of contract a trifling matter? I would like to ask any member who has given this any consideration what does that really mean? From the views put forward by some members you would think that contracts with regard to labour are only on the mines. Even if that was so, it would be very serious indeed, but anyone who has studied labour and industrial problems will find that assessment of contracts has been the cause of many bitter struggles. Contract system is growing broader and broader every day. To-day you have a large number of people employed in furniture factories. What is the basis of their employment contracts? That contract means to them the rate of wages they are going to get, and that is a very vital matter to the workers. I would ask those members who come from constituencies where there are railway workshops, we know Government employees are outside this Bill, but in examining a Bill of this kind one has to examine conditions obtaining in all industries, in railway workshops the contract of fixing of piecework prices has been one of the most fruitful sources of disagreement and annoyance, and not only annoyance, but a source of great trouble. This is especially so because you have pieceworkers there. The Bill says that, if necessary, the Minister may ap point a Board. I do not like the word “may.” I think the word “may” should be substituted by “shall.” But if you leave in the words which the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), desires to be omitted, then you will stultify the Bill. I wish the Minister of Mines would look at this from a impartial point of view. We want this Bill to be as broad as possible, we want to examine every avenue of trouble, and there is an avenue of trouble here. The Bill should be as broad as possible and take in every source of trouble, and the assessment of contracts is one of the most important things you can deal with in any conciliation bill. Contracts are prevalent in every trade. Take the furniture trade, the tailoring trade and any other trades where piecework is one of the most important features of the industry. In such cases the necessity of the hon. member’s amendment is very urgent, and I hope the House is going to support it. If it is not carried then one of the principal objects of this Bill is done away with. I have hoped during the week-end that the Minister have pondered over this, and be prepared to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). I do not think the Minister should accept the advice of any one set of employers or employees. He should deal with the whole of the situation, and he can only do that by making the Bill as broad as possible. We expected this Bill would do away with a lot of trouble, and when trouble is coming on we want every avenue of that trouble examined. If these words are allowed to remain, it will stultify the Bill, and it will not achieve its object. I can assure you that if they are not taken out you will have no end of trouble. For that reason I support the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson).

I am much surprised that the hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart) has taken up this attitude on the matter of contracts, as I understand he has been promoted to the order of the “Blow-hards.” In regard to the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) one always sympathizes with any motion or amendment he might bring forward in connection with any industry and its employees, because we believe that the hon. member is honest in his convictions in thinking that what he brings forward is for the benefit of the working man. But I must say, as far as I can see, that if this amendment is carried, which the hon. member has moved, it will be a great disservice to the working man. I must tell you that is my opinion. If you strikeout this proviso where these disagreements have to go before a board of conciliation, then you strike at the very root of discipline. My hon. friend must remember that before the strike in 1921, if there was any dispute on promotion or salaries or anything else, it was at once rushed to the board of reference. What was the consequence? A large number of men were always in front of the board of reference.

Why not?

Why not! Disputes, differences and so forth must be left in the management’s hands. What has been the position when, in the case of any promotion, one of the trade union officials said: “No, that is not the man who should be promoted, it should be somebody else?” It at once went to the board of reference.

How many times did that happen?

In the Consolidated Main Reef before the strike there were two shafts being put down. One was in easy ground and the other in difficult ground. The manager thought that the man supervising the work on the easy ground was a better man for the job on the difficult ground than the other man was, and he wanted to change over these men, but the men would not allow it, and at once there was a strike. If that sort of thing is allowed, you cannot have discipline, for it strikes at the root of discipline, and without discipline you cannot have efficiency. What is required in this country more than anything else is efficiency. Take America. If is supposed to be one of the most efficient countries in the world and there they are now starting an efficiency campaign, and it is stated they are going to save £2,500,000,000. If it is required in America, it is required much more in this country with its larger natural resources. Efficiency should be the slogan in South Africa. The majority of the people in this country are inefficient, and I maintain that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), who I know has the interests of the workers at heart, should not be allowed, as it is against the interests of South Africa as a whole, and the working man in particular.

It is always very interesting to hear the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) discourse to this House on efficiency. But his idea of efficiency and our idea are very different indeed. He gave us the illustration himself, that all over the world is this campaign for efficiency. You will find in India even, with their hordes of cheap labour, that it is said they must have greater efficiency to compete with South Africa. England says the same, in order to compete with America, and America now comes into the lists, and says: “We must have greater efficiency,” presumably in order that they might compete with other parts of the world, like England and South Africa. We see the same in Australia—Australia which is not now under a Labour Government but a “Braceite” Government. May I ask the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) if he will be good enough to answer me, what is the alternative to these men appearing before a board of reference, which under this Bill is a board of conciliation? What is the alternative? A man feels grieved by not having been engaged, or through having been suspended or discharged. He feels grieved, and not only he, but all his comrades feel grieved because they think that some distinct injustice has been done in one particular case. What does the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) want as an alternative? Does he want strikes? One would imagine you had fewer strikes when you had no boards of reference. Before boards of reference existed, it is well within my knowledge that on the most tin-pot and flimsy pretext there were strikes galore. We do not want to see that state of affairs coming into existence any more, and it is because of that that we are so anxious, the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) and the rest of us, that these noxious words should be eliminated. Sir, let me put this to the Committee, and I predict most confidently that if these words remain in this Bill and they become law, or part of the law, yon will have an era of industrial strife such as you have not witnessed before. Take the question of the discharge of a single individual. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) is in a better position than most men, in this House, to know that there is a tremendous amount of victimization going on at the present time. Men are being discharged if they dare to say that they possess a soul of their own. The hon. member is in touch with men who have suffered. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) is a man who sits aloft and says it shall be done. I am speaking from my knowledge of the men who are suffering under the disciplinary efforts of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) and his friends. I look upon him as typifying the crowd in this House. I ask you what harm can be done? I have failed to hear any hon. member in this Committee, during the course of the debate on this question, give us any real reason why there should not be a board of conciliation called together to consider any one of these individual cases. The Minister must ultimately decide whether any question of principle is involved. I ask the Minister whether in the case of an individual, who, we will say, is active in trade union work in the mines taking the collection of subscriptions at the shaft head from the miners and who gets the sack, I ask him to say whether the employers will not say that he is being retrenched. They may say that he is a bad workman. They will trump up all sorts of charges as I have reason to know full well. Will the Minister I ask when he investigates it, look upon it as a matter of principle although all the members of the trade union will believe that the man has been victimized because he has taken an active part in that particular trade union? I would like a reply from the Minister on that point. I appeal to the Minister. He is here placing before us the consideration of a Bill which purports to be a Conciliation Bill and especially so designed, and we must believe it to be so designed, to prevent industrial disputes. Then, let it be in the words of the hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart), a Bill to try as far as possible to cope with all situations that arise. Let us realize even if it does result in a multiplicity of conciliation boards, even if it does resolve itself into a large number of cases in which the Minister must take a tremendous amount of personal trouble and even if it does take time and expense, let us realize whether it is worth it. How often have these disputes arisen from small causes and indeed have resulted in the shedding of innocent blood in this country, and how much money has this House not passed in order to meet the expense of industrial trouble in this country? I do therefore in these circumstances, ask hon. members to cast their memories back and to try and realize what the removal of these words must mean. I urge the Minister to re-consider his attitude upon this point, and I would ask him to remember that we are just as anxious as he is to avoid industrial strife in this country.

The great question here is: what is a matter of principle? When you have decided that you get over the difficulty of hon. members opposite. There is one point that has not yet been touched upon. Assume the case of an employer who intends to promote a man. Under this Act he must give one month’s notice of his intention to promote him. There may be others in a similar position with an equal right of promotion; they may have had longer service. Assume that a board is appointed and it is decided that the man, who is to be promoted, is not promoted. What happens then? Do they recommend somebody else? Assuming that the employer refuses to accept the man who is reccommended, what happens then? A deadlock results. Unless discretionary power is given to the Minister there will be trouble. There must be power given to deal with these cases. My view is that if these words are deleted and the Minister is not given discretionary power, it means that you will cause far greater trouble than you will if he has not this power, because there is no machinery to deal with this matter in a straightforward manner. You have had given you the case of a man who is to be promoted, but is not promoted because the board objected. It might mean that the only way to decide the difficulty is to bring in an outsider into that position. That will mean dissatisfaction all round. I cannot see how this can be deleted unless you bring something in its place to deal with the matter satisfactorily.

I think the hon. members opposite must have been misled by some remarks which have been made during the discussion. What the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) has said is precisely our object. We agree with every word the hon. member said in the early part of his remarks. The Minister’s discretion is limited by this proviso and in precisely such cases as the hon. member suggests the Minister will be able to do nothing. I am sure from the discussion we have had that many members think that if the proviso is deleted it is tantamount to enacting that the Minister must appoint a conciliation board in all these cases. It is nothing of the kind. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) is evidently under the same impression, and I was surprised at his remarks. The hon. member knows perfectly well that we all recognize the necessity of discipline in any organization. I do not care whether it is in a cricket or a football team or on a mine or anything else. Many of the hon. members’ remarks would have been appropriate if the proposal to delete this proviso is the same as making a proposal forcing the Minister to appoint a conciliation board in every frivolous case that arises. It is nothing of the sort. As the clause would read, leaving the proviso out, it leaves the Minister with discretion entirely in his own hands, if a complaint is put before him, as to whether he considers it a matter of sufficient importance to appoint a conciliation board. I have not heard of the particular case which the hon. member quoted, but if the temper was such that a thing like this might cause a real disturbance it does not matter whether either party is unreasonable. The point is to try and get by means of a conciliation board all the cards laid on the table and to get a bit of fresh air. The Minister would be the judge and the person who would have the responsibility in the matter. He would decide whether or not this was a matter in which he thought it worth while to have a conciliation board. If Clause 10 is amended, neither party can proceed to extremities until the conciliation board has investigated the matter. I am afraid that certain circumsances will arise and those hon. members from the Witwatersrand will remember the cause of the disturbance of 1913. It arose from a dispute, a very important dispute, on a matter on which the men felt deeply. It occurred at the Kleinfontein Mine. I think it only affected three men, and the Transvaal Conciliation Act limited the Minister’s discretion as they are trying to limit it now. It was laid down that if it only affected less than ten men the machinery could not be put into force. But although it may only affect two or three men it may affect a great many more. Further, supposing you have the proviso, and say the owners’ side do not want a conciliation board and the Minister in his opinion thinks it is a very serious matter, it might lead to serious results unless he appoints a conciliation board, and he should have the power to do so. There is no compulsion about it. It simply says that the Minister can appoint a conciliation board, and you shall neither of you go to extremes, and neither of you shall fight about the thing, until the whole matter has been threshed cut in public, so that the pressure of public opinion can be brought to bear upon it.

I agree to a great extent with what has been said by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) with regard to the essentiality of discipline and efficiency in industry. If we are to hold our own we must have efficiency and discipline. I do not think that you can get efficiency, in fact I am sure you cannot, unless you have discipline. When I look at this sub-section I really cannot understand how the Minister cannot see his way to accept its deletion. He has brought this Bill on to the floor of the House for one reason, and for one reason only, and that is to try and prevent strikes. Now, anyone who has been in public life for any length of time on the Witwatersrand must know that the majority of our strikes started in these very small ways. There is not the slightest doubt about it. Some of the most intense strikes that we have had started in a small way. If we had had some machinery like this, with goodwill between both sides to meet and discuss the matter in a conciliatory spirit, strikes would have been avoided. Seeing that the Minister has taken the responsibility under this clause of deciding when a sufficient number of men come forward and ask for the appointment of a board, we want him to take further power in connection with these matters, especially in regard to this matter of the assessment of contract prices. I can assure the Minister that unless something is done in that connection it will not be very long before we see more trouble upon the Witwatersrand. Unless he has full power to call a conciliation board in connection with this matter I can foresee more trouble. It is owe of the burning questions of the Rand, especially on the East Rand. I ask the Minister to take into serious consideration the question of limiting his powers in connection with these conciliation boards. I hope that he will not consider that there is any obstruction in connection with this matter, for I am quite sure that the members of this House have only one idea as regards this Bill, and that is to try and work amicably together in an endeavour to make it an effective instrument to prevent strikes.

The Minister may think that we protest too much, but it could not be otherwise, because we are so anxious that this Bill should ensure industrial peace. If any apologies are necessary for our protests, they may be summed up in our desire to see the strike weapon eliminated once and for all from industrial disputes. That is why we are so anxious that this measure should be made as acceptable as possible. There is no necessity to reiterate the reasons already put forward why the Minister should accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). In fact in every respect this Bill had bright prospects; everything in the Bill was pleasing, but this clause is vile, and no one knows it better than the Minister himself. He is well aware that the matters now contracting out are responsible for more industrial trouble than wages or any other question of a like nature. If the Prime Minister was in the House I would appeal to him for support. On the second reading of the Wine and Spirits Control Bill the Prime Minister said: “I am prepared if the House is with me to go a long way in the case of disputes as to price. There should be some reference to another authority in order that any disagreement might be avoided.” This is conciliation, and if the Prime Minister was prepared in that Bill to go a long way to refer the matter to another authority so that disagreements should be avoided, his co-Minister should be prepared to do likewise in regard to industrial conciliation. I feel that the Minister has already made up his mind not to change the proviso, but if it is the desire of the House that the Bill should be a workable measure, nothing should remain in it to prevent conciliation.

Even at the risk of being accused of reiteration I must again remind the House that the principle of the Bill is that there should be no strike, without negotiation. Having accepted that principle the question is what machinery are you going to set up to carry the principle into operation? By Clause 10, no employer can make any alteration in the terms of employment except under certain circumstances, without proper notice, but the terms of employment shall not include the engagement, suspension, discharge, promotion, transfer or de-rating of an individual employee or the assessment of contract prices, unless in the opinion of the Minister a matter of principle is involved. The question of promotion does not arise, there will be no dispute about promotion. That is a trivial objection. Application for a conciliation board is to be made within 14 days, and granted by the Minister—in the matters mentioned he has discretionary power, viz., if he is of opinion that a matter of principle is involved—in which case he can say that no conciliation may be arranged. That is not honest, and if the proviso is retained it is loading the dice against the working man. Clause 12 says that there shall be no strike on account of any matter until the result of the board or industrial council, who has enquired into the matter, is reported. Suppose that upon a question of assessment of contract prices a board is applied for and he refuses it. He will be asked “Can we go on strike?” “Certainly not,” he replies, “until the board is held.” Is not that loading the dice against the working man? The Bill was a well-balanced one before. There is no advantage gained by the insertion of the proviso, but the effectiveness of the Bill has been altered entirely. That is not the way to get conciliation. The only argument advanced in its favour is that it tends to discipline. That was provided for by sub-section (2) of Clause 10 of the Bill: “if within 14 days of the receipt by an employer of any such notice—if application is made in terms of section 4 for the appointment of a conciliation board, etc.” The Minister has sufficient power in the Bill if the amendment is accepted. He has not answered the points raised, and he has not proved to me that the clause as it now stands is not against the working man. The power which is given to him in Clauses 4 and 10 in regard to conciliation boards is quite sufficient to protect the interest of the employers.

Ek wil net die Minister vra—ek weet nie of daar by ’n vorige geleentheid alreeds daarop geantwoord is, maar in die geval hoop ek hy sal nog weer daarop antwoord—waarom hy nie bereid is die amendement van die edele lid vir Jeppes (de hr. Sampson) aan te neem, want ek hoop dat ook vir die Minister die enige belang is die belang van die land en dat hy geen politiek van sy eie besit. As ek verkeerd is, dan hoop ek sal die Minister daaromtrent enige inligting gee. As ek reg is, dan kan hy gerus die klausule skrap. Ek kan nie sien nie, van watter belang dit is of gaan wees vir hom en die Regering. Kyk b.v. in seksie 1 van artiekel 4 word nou duidelik aan die hand gegee dat geen versoeningsraad benoem word wanneer ’n geskil verrys in verband met indiensneming, skorsing, ontslag, bevordering oorplasing of verlating van ’n arbeider of in verband met kontrak-pryse. Die hele klasse van griewe word nou uitgesluit van die bevoegdheid van ’n versoeningsraad, m.a.w. as iemand kla of klaë het rakende een van die dinge as onderwerp, dan het die Minister geen bevoegdheid om ’n versoeningsraad in die lewe te roep. Dus kan die persoon geen beroep doen op enig staatsliggaam of wettelike liggaam voor wie hy sy griewe kan lê of ondersoek kan kry. Nou artiekel 12, seksie 3. Sê, dat ’n staking deur enige persoon of organisasie aangegaan alvorens ’n versoeningsraad die saak ondersoek het en ’n beslissing uitgespreek het, is ’n misdaad, maar nou wil ek net van die Minister weet of dit so is, dat die betreffende persone geen middel het hoegenaamd om hul griewe voor te bring? Die griewe is uitgesluit van ’n versoeningsraad en hulle kan nie staak nie, want die wet maak dit ’n misdryf. Nou ek dink, as dit so is, dan moet daaraan tegemoet gekom word en ek glo die Minister kan gerus die amendement aanneem.

By die indiening van hierdie Wetsontwerp het ek gesê, elkeen wat belange het aan die Rand, juig dit toe en is baie bly dat die Minister die wet ingedien het, want ons het van tyd tot tyd groot moeilikhede met stakinge. Maar hierdie artiekel, sien ek ook, deug nie. Die artiekel noem dinge wat uitgesluit is van ’n versoeningsraad, en die net dinge waaromtrent daar baie male stakings gewees het. Ek hoop daarom, die Minister sal die voorstel van die edele lid vir Jeppes (de hr. Sampson) aanneem. Ek hoop dis die doel van die Minister, dat alle geskille so uit die weg geruim kan word, dat daar in die toekoms nie meer redes vir stakings sal bestaan nie.

I am rather surprised at the argument put up by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). I can understand an argument of that kind coming from the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). He is not a lawyer, but surely the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) is not serious when he says that because strikes are forbidden under Clause 12 before recourse is had to a conciliation board that therefore that prohibition applies to matters in which a Minister is prevented from appointing a conciliation board.

Why not?

Surely not!

Why not?

If you cannot have a reconciliation board then the law will not force you to wait such a time until a conciliation board is appointed. That is the ordinary interpretation that can be put upon the clause.

dissented.

Clearly, the Minister is empowered to appoint a conciliation board in certain cases, but the provisions of Clause 12 cannot apply to this case, because the Minister cannot appoint a conciliation board, etc. It seems to me that he must.

That is a lawyer’s answer.

It is a complete answer. I am surprised at a lawyer taking a different view. I am really. I am surprised at any lawyer advancing any other argument.

Oh!

There is no other answer to be given to it.

They can strike.

I am very much surprised at the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), who says otherwise.

Daar het jy dit! Nou kan ’n mens sien, hoe maklik dit vir ons regsgeleerde is om te verskil. Daar is net een lesing moontlik en as die edele lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber) reg het, dan sal ek die Minister vra in te sit in Klausule 12 dat stakings sal toegelaat word in alle gevalle sonder straf, waar die Minister nie die reg het om ’n versoeningsraad in die lewe te roep nie. Maar wat het die Minister dan gewin? Dan het hy alles verloor. Siet die dwaasheid daarvan—hy ontneem homself die bevoegdheid om ’n versoeningsraad in die lewe te roep tot bylegging van dispute en in Klausule 12 weer word bepaald dat as ’n staking hieroor op tou gesit word, sal dit nie strafbaar wees nie. Is dit nie ’n bewys, dat dit loop oor sake, waarin jy ook die reg moet besit om ’n versoeningsraad daar te stel nie? Die edele lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber) bewys met sy redenering, hoe swak die posisie is. Ek het geluister, maar die Huis kan sien hoe duister dit is. Die edele lid vir Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) sê, dat die disipliene sal verbreek word as die bepaling nie geskrap word nie, maar ek sou graag ’n praktiese voorbeeld hoor van hoe dit sal gebeur. Dan weet ons nie wat disipliene is nie! Die edele lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber) het ander dag die ding mooi voorgestel. Hy het nie gesê disipliene nie, maar dit sal vir die werkgewer lastig wees, as sy bediende of sy employe oor enige beuselagtigheid na ’n versoeningsraad kan gaan. Ek sou graag van enig een wou weet hoe, as hierdie voorsiening nie geskrap word nie, die disipliene geaffekteer sal word. Ek het probeer, maar kan nie sien nie en hoop die Minister sal ’n meer voldoende antwoord gee as die edele lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber). Ek wil sê, dat dit nie nodig is die standpunt te handhaaf nie; die Minister sal nl. vind as hy weer ’n staking kry, dat hy verstandig gehandel het deur die bepaling te skrap, wanneer hy vind dat dit niks help om enige saak uit te sluit nie. Dit loop tot ’n punt en dan is dit goed dat die deur oopgehou is.

I have listened to this discussion on this particular clause with very great interest. It seems that there are still many people in this House who have not yet learned that lesson with regard to industrial troubles in South Africa.

Don’t threaten.

I am not threatening at all.

Yes, you are.

There are certain persons in this House to-day who are old crusted Tories. We have here on these benches members who represent the industrial sections and trade unions, who have come forward in the spirit of conciliation and admitted that mistakes have been made in the past. Every trade unionist admits that, and they come in a straightforward way and admit it, while at the same time they are prepared to assist to pass a Conciliation Bill through the House. But they say there is one small clause which stands in the way. Here, however, we have one or two individuals, whom they represent I do not know, but I know they do not represent the views and feelings of the majority of employers of this country. I want to know who they do represent. Why do not honourable members on the other side stand up and say what they think about this clause? I say this proviso which has been inserted is the biggest mistake which has ever been made in this House. That it is to the advantage of vested interests. As members of Parliament we are supposed to represent our constituents; why do not hon. members stand up in their seats and fight this clause as they know they ought to? We can only draw one conclusion, and they stand condemned by their silence. Speaking as a man who lives away from the Reef—and the Reef is not the whole of South Africa—hundreds of employers in other parts of South Africa have not asked for this. It has been inserted at the behest of certain persons. That is the real reason. In the old days of the shops stewards committees the workmen used to take their grievances to them and said this had got to be put a stop to, and no doubt, sometimes the committees went too far. In the face of that movement in the bad old days you want to put this Conciliation Bill on the statute book. Why should members stand up and defend a clause which is obnoxious? One party to the contract says: “We will accept this Bill on condition these words come out, because they are a reflection on the trade union movement,” and after all Mr. Speaker, working men are not such fools as they are made out to be by some persons in this House. They are not unreasonable. If an employer of labour in the course of his business transfers one individual from one place to another it is quite possible that workers themselves would agree to it and would have nothing to say. You will find they are not quite such fools as some members think they are.

Who says they are?

The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) said so. He belongs to the crusted Tory school. He is one of those men who have not yet seen the light. I suppose he wants to settle disputes by machine guns.

Do not be more foolish than you can help.

Although I am not a K.C. or a very superior person, I do claim to be an average, common or garden specimen of humanity. We want conciliation; we want to get away from the bad old days. I want to put it to the Minister that it would be far better to take the risk of creating a few extra conciliation boards than run the risk of many more strikes. Are they not a bad form of economy; are they not rather expensive? Why not have a few more extra boards, because it may be that you will have many less strikes. I put it to the Minister that what you have to decide in this clause is whether you have satisfied the trade unions, and thereby have done a good stroke of work for South Africa.

I think we are generating a great deal of heat without throwing much light on the matter. There is a danger of this debate assuming the form of a lawyer’s argument, and I do not think the way we are discussing it now is a very good example of conciliation. I for one hope the Minister will see his way to accept this amendment, because I think that in a Bill like this, which is intended to act as a means of conciliation between employers and employed, we cannot approach it in any too open a fashion. This is a matter on which I think the Minister can justifiably give way without the slightest danger to the principles involved. Anyone who studies this proviso well will see the frequent occurrence of the word “may” under this proviso. The Minister has ample powers to deal with the matters likely to arise. We want not only to pass a Conciliation Bill, but we want to convey to both employers and employees that this is a genuine attempt at conciliation, and above all, we want to avoid any source of suspicion. I hope that the Minister will take into consideration that there must be a certain amount of suspicion aroused—I will not say whether it is reasonable or not—by the insertion of this clause in the Bill. It should serve a very useful purpose if the Minister will reconsider his decision and agree to the withdrawal of this clause. I, for one, anticipate a happier working of the Bill than if the clause is to remain, because the workers will feel more satisfied. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has spoken of the dice being loaded against the workers. Well, I do not think that that is a phrase which should be introduced into this debate or into any debate of this kind. At all events, if this Bill is passed without this proviso, I think we can demand, and get the whole sympathy of the labour movement and of the leaders of the Labour Party in the House, and that they will do their best to make this Bill a really workable one.

I am sorry the hon. the member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) is not here just now. He put a question to me just now, which I wish to reply to, and which, seeing that he is absent now, I shall have to go all over again later. I want to say that I think that the House, on both sides, has given too much prominence, or attached too much importance to this proviso. As has been pointed out, the Minister already has the discretion under the clause to refuse a conciliation board for anything, so that adding the proviso does not really take the thing very much further. You really only say that they cannot apply for certain things unless a matter of principle is involved, and there again the discretion of the Minister comes in. The reason for this amendment has been asked, and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) opened the discussion this evening by putting that question again. I explained on Friday that the experience of the war with regard to continual enquiries by boards of reference on the Rand, led to a state of affairs which interfered with the ordinary management of the mines and with the working of the industries there.

That is a one-sided statement.

What was the result? An industrial board was appointed on which served a man of the greatest experience, Mr. Brace, and he said that the condition of affairs on the Rand was untenable—you could not run things on these lines, and in his report this clause was put in, in the contract which they arranged, for a conciliation board to take the place of the existing conciliation machinery. This clause was put in—this schedule was taken from the agreement which the Brace Commission negotiated for the Witwatersrand—

Did Mr. Brace suggest that?

That was the position and that was the reason why it was put in. Yes. The difficulty was that everything, every little dispute meant the holding up of the industry until the conciliation board was held and the intention was to prevent these things being done and interfering with the ordinary working of an industry. It was on these grounds that the Brace Commission came to the conclusion that there could be no board in individual cases of this kind. I have gone further in order to meet the views of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) and others, because they made representations to me in the recess, and I said: “ I shall put in another clause and I shall be more lenient than the Brace Commission has been,” and I said that even for individual cases a board would be given if the Minister was satisfied that a question of principle was involved. I had the New Kleinfontein case in mind and I said that although it might be an individual case applications could be made to the Minister and it lay with the Minister to say whether a conciliation board would be appointed.

It will be too late, there will be a strike.

When you see that that is in the clause now, you will see that the difference between the clause with or without the proviso is not so very material. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) makes out that there is a very material difference but he has lost sight of this concluding paragraph of the proviso. There is the argument of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). I read Clause 12 very much as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) does. I grant that it is a drafting matter and that it may be clearly expressed and I shall make it clear that a matter which cannot be submitted to conciliation cannot be prohibited from strike, because it is not the intention even with conciliation to prohibit a strike. This is not a Bill to prohibit strikes, it tries to prevent them by letting people come together in a sort of permanent Whitley Councils and let them discuss all these matters in a Whitley Council. There is no reason why these dismissals, etc., should not be brought before the Whitley Council. When a dispute arises and you have an ad hoc conciliation board then I say you cannot have this conciliation board for all individual cases of this kind because, as the Brace Commission thought, on the Rand, it led to chaos. They say so in their report and I had it in the schedule which I brought in last year. It was overlooked in re-drafting the Bill but I have gone further here and I said that even in individual cases, if the Minister is satisfied that a principle is involved—and I had the history of the Kleinfontein in mind when I put it in—a conciliation board could be appointed. There are such individual cases and when such cases arise, I think a conciliation board should be granted. But as far as Clause 12 is concerned, it is a matter of bringing it into line with the provisions of Clause 4.

We seem to be reaching that atmosphere where conciliation boards break down. I know something about that—that is where the one side refuses to face the arguments of the other side. I want to say this that I do not accept the recommendations of the Brace Commission as the last word on industrial matters in this country. I am willing So stake my experience of industrial matters in this country against that of Mr. Brace and his five minutes’ visit to South Africa. Yes, I have had a great deal of experience here and I know pretty well what takes place in other countries in regard to matters like these. When the Minister comes here and tells us of the motive which inspired the Brace Commission to recommend that sketchy bill which he introduced at the beginning of last session—well let me say this—if he has these ends in view then why does he not withdraw this Bill and re-introduce last year’s measure? That bill was the laughingstock of the country. But is he giving effect to the recommendations of the Brace Commission by his proviso? Their complaint was that the mining industry of the Rand was constantly held up, suspended while boards of reference sat to enquire into matters of trivial dispute, to settle disciplinary matters. This Bill remedies that. It says: “there shall be no hold-up of industry while these enquiries proceed,” but by inserting this proviso the Minister is asking for the very thing which he claims he is trying to avoid. He is bringing about the very thing which the Brace Commission said should not be. Now the hon. member for Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) said he did not like the expression of “the dice being loaded against the workmen.” The hon. member objects to that. I say I am entitled to use that expression. I claim that the Minister is misleading the House when he says that this Bill does not prohibit strikes over trivial matters. My reading of Clause 12 will tally with that of any magistrate on the Rand.

I said that we shall alter it.

Clause 12 says that men are prohibited from striking for any cause or any dispute until a conciliation board or an industrial council has inquired into the matter and reported thereon. Now if no conciliation board or industrial council inquires into it, well then still the men cannot strike.

That would not stop them.

Thereby the dice are loaded against them. I say that that is wrong. I cannot understand the motive. I may be dull but I really cannot see what is really behind this proviso. Why you should take the risk in a country like this of having strikes over any matter I cannot see. I have taken part in some 17 strikes, 11 of which were in connection with these very matters. Now if you are going to take that risk of strikes on account of these matters there should be a much better reason than the reason given by the Minister. I take it that there is a desire to provide other machinery for the redress of grievances than a strike. If I were to submit this proviso to a plebiscite of employers and employees there would be a 99 per cent. majority against it. Then there is the question of motives behind these amendments. The Minister started on the wrong road. Someone came to him and said: “workmen who are not organized should be included under this Bill.” He listened to them. He did not listen to anyone else; he did not listen to his own committee or to his own departmental advisers. “No”—he said—“we will now make provision in the Bill by which Tom, Dick and Harry, when they have got a matter in dispute, may apply for a conciliation board.” And he knows that Tom, Dick and Harry are not disciplined, and are not members of a trade union. And because they may apply for conciliation boards in connection with trivial matters the proviso has to go in. And again in Clause 10. I think a case is entirely made out for the deletion of the proviso, and certainly the public have more to gain by the taking of it out than by its insertion.

Ek is die Minister dankbaar vir die gegewe voorligting, maar moet sê dat die vraag wat soewe gestel is deur die lid vir Jeppes (de hr. Sampson) is juis die vraag wat ek wou stel, nl. wat is dan die stopsetting of die ophou, of die verwarring wat daar sal ontstaan volgens die Minister skyn te vrees by ’n nywerheid, wanneer ’n indiwidu vra om ’n versoeningsraad en dit verkry. Ek vra dit omdat ek juis gedag het dat die oogmerk is om te belet dat stakings sal plaasvind en ook dat tegelykertyd belet sal word dat onreelmatighede sal uitbreek, totdat die versoeningsraad sal gesit het. Dit kom my voor dat as iemand om ’n persoonlike saak die geen beginsel geld nie ’n versoeningsraad kry, dat dit nie kan indruis teen die voortsetting van besigheid, behalwe in sover hy nodig is om getuigenis te gee. Wanorde tog kan daar nie ontstaan nie, want dit is belet juis onder hierdie wet. Ek kan nie die motief van die Minister in hierdie verband begryp nie, om namelik die klausule daar te behou. As ek en die lid vir Jeppes (de hr. Sampson) gelyk het, sal dit verstandig wees van die Minister om hierdie klausule te laat val.

I do not want to prolong this discussion, but the Minister again and again in the course of this discussion seems to be confusing two things. He spoke so often about the board of reference, but what was the position? The position was that quite a voluntary agreement was arrived at between the Chamber of Mines, representing the employers, and the South African Industrial Federation, representing the large body of trade unions. They came to an agreement that they would enquire into any matter which was brought before them. That voluntary coming together is the very germ of the Whitley Council’s system. But this is entirely a different matter. I am not going to enter into the legal argument, but I do suggest to the Minister that he is confusing two things. Those remarks of the Brace Commission applied to standing agreements of that sort, but it does not apply to a thing like this when you leave the power of the Minister absolutely unlimited, and to use his own judgement in response to any application he receives. I am very grateful to the hon. member for Border (Gen. Byron) for his support. We shall know in the future whether we have been wiser in putting this proviso in or leaving it out, but I think the House will be much better in not limiting the discretion of the Minister in such matters.

It is rather interesting to listen to the comment of the other side, but I hope the Minister is going to stick to this proviso to Clause 4 for the simple reason that this proviso is perfectly sound common-sense. It is perfectly true that you may have serious strikes arising out of the things which have been set out in the proviso, but the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell), who is fair-minded in this matter, will admit that a large number of matters provided for in the proviso may be of a most trivial and petty nature, and it would be perfectly absurd to have the whole machinery of a conciliation board set in motion to deal with such trivial things. But one of the vital features of the proviso is being ignored. The Minister cannot appoint a board “unless upon a matter of principle,” and that is a fundamental point in that clause. This is being treated by the hon. member opposite as if it were only a Chamber of Mines dispute, but if the hon. member reads this Bill, he will find that it covers not only the Transvaal but the whole of the Union.

We referred to the man behind the gun.

I thought the hon. member was above that silly talk. It will be seen that Clause 12 is of a very general nature, but I am very certain that when a court has to decide upon that clause, it will hold that the clause must be limited to cases where an industrial or conciliation board is possible. You cannot compel a man to do anything—

You can shove him in a “tronk,”though.

As the Minister says, Clause 12 wants redressing to be made clear on this point. But even on the clause as it stands I am perfectly certain that the court would interpret it in the way that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) has indicated, and as I have indicated. Under the circumstances I think the proviso to Clause 4 is a common-sense provision; it makes the clause elastic, and I hope the Minister will keep it in.

I did not intend to speak again on this matter, but I would like to answer the argument, which is the only argument against the amendment, that it would permit petty and trifling things to come before the board. It must be remembered that a case is not brought before the board by the man himself, but by his trade union. Is it likely, therefore, that a trade union or a body of men, if there is no union, sufficiently representative of the industry, is going to take up a petty matter? Before they take up a matter which is going to lead to an industrial war, you can be certain that for the members of that union it will be a vital matter. A man cannot bring it up—his union must bring it up; and unless he convinces his union he cannot bring the matter to the notice of the Minister at all. That is the answer to that argument. There can be nothing trivial or petty under those circumstances. Unless the Minister changes Clause 12 it will lead to a lot of trouble. As the clause stands it may be interpreted to mean what the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has said. If you put before the courts of this country two inconsistent clauses of a bill, you leave it open to them to interpret which clause shall prevail over the other. When the hon. member for Troyeville says that no lawyer will agree with me, I differ from him. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) rightly says you must give some effect to this proviso, but still the meaning is not clear. It is simply one of two inconsistent provisions in the Bill, which is a very bad method of drafting. This is what may have happened. Without the proviso Clause 12 was perfectly correct, and you cannot strike until you have an industrial council or conciliation board. The Minister has put in a proviso providing in certain cases there shall be no conciliation board, and he has forgotten to amend Clause 12. I point out that we are talking about conciliation boards and we are throwing overboard our own conciliation board. I suppose the conciliation board of Parliament is the Select Committee. When you have a dispute across the floor of the House, you appoint a Select Committee and you fight it out in Select Committee. That is our conciliation board. That is my objection to the proviso being put in by the Minister. We have appointed a Select Committee consisting of various representatives of this House, who decided to leave it in a form different from that of the Minister. We talk about conciliation, yet when our conciliation board arrives at an agreement in the committee room, we find when Bill after Bill comes before us, that the Minister gets up and asks the House to throw over the recommendation of the conciliation board.

Mr. Chairman—[Hon. Members: “Vote, vote.”] It is no good for hon. members to shout “vote.” This is a law you are placing upon the statute book for a very important purpose. What is the use of it unless you expect it to accomplish its purpose? There are two sides to every move for conciliation. You are not going to make the Conciliation Bill a success unless the workers are behind it. That is the position. I hope, sir, that the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) will not say that we are using threats. No, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) never used threats. He told us exactly what the position was. Just as many of us in this country have tried to convey to the powers that be the exact trend of affairs in the industrial field. Yet we are accused of levelling threats because we tried to put the position before the powers that be. The Chamber of Mines is behind this proviso as the Minister admitted a little while ago when he spoke. He said the proviso was inserted owing to the fact that we were having petty disputes referred to the reference board on the Witwatersrand and it was practically impossible to carry on the industry. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) at all events is a “sport.” He can give a smack in the eye just as well as he can take one in return. The position is that the Chamber of Mines is behind the proviso. Why are they behind the proviso? It is because the Chamber of Mines is top-dog in South Africa. It is because they are of opinion to-day that the workers have no more hope or inclination of striking than we have of pulling the moon down. But just like the tide ebbs and flows so the trade union movement will gather strength month after month and year after year, and unless you provide facilities under the Act for these men coming under the conciliation board and giving the worker an opportunity for arbitration on this burning question, we shall have more strikes in South Africa. That is not a threat. That is a plain statement of fact. Any man with common sense will realize it. You cannot have industrial peace in South Africa unless you have satisfaction amongst the workers and unless they are getting a square deal. Already you close up the avenue. Yes, you do close up the constitutional avenue to the working classes to obtain redress by constitutional methods and then you have the upheavel and the earthquake and the tidal wave and everybody goes down. We do not want to have that sort of thing in South Africa. Hon. members on the other side are suspicious of us in this corner. They think we have some ulterior motive. We want all these questions to come under the Conciliation Bill otherwise I say do not have a Conciliation Bill. The Chamber of Mines are behind this proviso because they feel that they are powerful enough to deal with the workers. But I would point out that the workers will get their wind back just like the man who is knocked out in the twentieth round in a contest and who will come up again later on. We do not want this sort of thing to happen because the workers will suffer. The Minister said that we were placing too much importance upon this proviso. Surely when the Minister reads that no conciliation board shall be appointed under the section if the dispute is in regard to engagements, suspensions, promotions, discharge or the assessment of contract prices, unless in the opinion of the Minister a matter of principle is involved, I ask what happens? They ask for a conciliation board. They cannot have one unless the Minister thinks it is a matter of principle. All right, they ask for a conciliation board. What happens? The Minister says in his opinion there is no question of principle, and if it is the workers who are asking for the Board they approach the Minister and they ask him to see deputations with the object of getting him to alter his opinion if he says it is not a matter of principle. In the meantime you will probably find that someone has taken the bull by the horns and you have a strike. Whereas if you are in earnest you will avoid anything in the nature of a strike by giving the workers an opportunity of having a conciliation board. When the onus is placed upon the Minister nobody knows better than he the difficulty of trying to satisfy the different sections of the community in this country. He is asked to receive deputations and I have been on many deputations myself to the Minister. He receives the deputation, and he is very nice to us and he tells us about references to Parliament or to the Cabinet, and he has never settled the question himself. That is putting him in an invidious position. Of course when the workers are strong enough they do not ask for conciliation, and when the employers are strong enough they do not ask for a conciliation. At the present moment the employers are in a very strong position. Taking Clause 12 in conjunction with this other point I will tell hon. members that under the old Industrial Disputes Act, that in 1913, I do not think the Government were too clear as to exactly what the different clauses meant. But they had the police after us, and we were in and out of the “ tronk” frequently in 1913. They were continually shoving the leaders of the strike into jail under certain charges, and they did their utmost. We were often never tried before the magistrate, but they kept us out of the way. We have had our experience, and there is nothing like experience to teach a man what the law is. After our experience in the past we are quite convinced that if you eliminate all these particular items from this Bill, you will have a strike in South Africa. Myself and a few more of us do not do this for the love of it or because we want trouble. We do it because we feel we have a duty to our fellow workers. Then we are shoved into “tronk,” and it is no use for a lawyer to come along in a fortnight or three weeks’ time and tell us it is all done illegally, because the Government passes an Indemnity Bill and safeguards itself. We prefer to see no law upon the statute book at all, and not to have a Conciliation Bill passed at all, unless you have a Conciliation Bill which will provide for every dispute in this country, and which may reach a greater magnitude than many hon. members realize to-day. Every one of these disputes should be amenable to settlement by arbitration, and if this cannot be done, I would ask the Government to withdraw the Bill and go on in the same way as in the past, raising Cain every five or six years, and every time you have a strike in South Africa each one will be worse than the previous one. Our experience has taught us something, and now that we have got away from the stormy days of 1922, we should do our utmost to have a law placed upon the statute book by which all the workers and the employers and every one will try and make arbitration successful. Unless the Bill is backed by the workers of South Africa as well as by the employers, we shall not have arbitration nor conciliation, but we shall carry on in the same old way in the future as in the past.

The arguments coming from the other side of the House seems to me mutually destructive. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has pointed out that if this proviso remains and the Minister refuses the conciliation board that there will be constant applications made to him and people will lose their tempers and there will be a strike.

They cannot apply for a board.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) pointed out that the Minister would have the power of refusing boards without this proviso, so all those dreadful things which have been forecasted will come about whether you have the proviso or not. But the reason for my rising is to put before this Committee that this matter deals not with the mines only, but with every form of employment. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) or the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) said he would undertake that 90 per cent, of the employers in the country would be put out by the adoption of this proviso, but this is not so. It is because we fear that the value of these conciliation boards will be destroyed by trivial things being brought before them, such as stated here to be trivial and such as the Minister has told us that Mr. Brace looked upon as trivial. It is because we fear that the usefulness of the boards will be destroyed that we hope this proviso will be retained. We have heard a lot about common-sense. My common-sense leads me to think that these individual questions should be left out of the matters before these conciliation boards. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) said he was in 17 strikes and 11 had to do with individual employment. He did not say that these strikes involved a matter of principle, but I do not think the hon. member would go on strike unless it was a matter of principle, and if it was a matter of principle the Minister would have a right to appoint a conciliation board.

What is a matter of principle?

In this case it is left to the Minister as to what is a matter of principle.

It is not left to the Minister. It is cut out.

“Unless in the opinion of the Minister a matter of principle is involved.” I am satisfied that this proviso should be retained.

I wish to endorse the statements made by the last hon. member. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) said that this matter had been fathered by the Chamber of Mines; on the contrary, it is a provision which has been considered by the whole of the employer’s organizations throughout the country. Most of us have received letters, not only from the Chambers of Commerce, but from the builders. I have a letter here, dated the 1st February, in which they state that after hearing what had been said in the House that they were alarmed at the discussion and that in their opinion the clause should be retained, as otherwise conciliation boards may be appointed upon matters which only concern the employer and a particular employee. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) stated that the matter had not been discussed in the Cape. Even in Cape Town a meeting of a joint board of employers and employees discussed the question and unanimously accepted the principle in the Bill. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) stated that he had taken part in 17 strikes, but he omitted to tell us that this was before the joint boards had been appointed. He knows to-day that a strike would not take place until the matter was thrashed out by the joint boards, and this proviso only refers to individual employees. As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South-West) (Sir William Macintosh) said, there would be no discipline in the trade if any individual could call for a joint board on a particular question in which he was solely interested.

To meet the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South-West) (Sir William Macintosh) all that is needed in the clause is to put in that no conciliation board shall be appointed unless the Minister thinks a matter of principle is involved. The matter as dealt with here exempts from the Bill any power to appoint, unless he is convinced that there is a matter of principle. Why not say that the Minister is not to appoint a board unless a matter of principle is involved? Instead, it is proposed that the Minister “may” appoint a board. That is the trouble; he could refuse to appoint a board on any matter before, but in regard to these matters in the proviso he cannot appoint a board. The hon. member for Pretoria East (Mr. Giovanetti) said that a number of organizations of employers had been consulted. If there was a difference of opinion, why had one side only been consulted?

I did not say that. I said that a number had considered the Bill.

And were invited to give their opinion with regard to it. Why were similar facilities not extended to the employees? The employees have not been considered since they gave evidence upstairs except that they were forwarded a list of amendments, the Minister intended to make in the Bill. I submit again that there has been no case made out for the proviso. As soon as one argument is met, you shift around to another point. No one has given sufficient reasons to the House to change the opinion of any intelligent man.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Nixon, viz.—

put and agreed to.

Question put: That the proviso, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause; and the Committee divided:

Ayes—57.

Bailey, A.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bezuidenhout, W. W. J. J.

Bisset, M.

Blackwell, L.

Buchanan, W. P.

Cilliers, P. S.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Coetzee, J. P.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Fitchat, H.

Fourie, J. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Graumann, H.

Greenacre, W.

Grohler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Henderson, R. H.

Jagger, J. W.

Jordaan, P. J.

King, J. G.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Mackeurtan, H. G.

Malan, F. S.

Marwick, J. S.

McAlister, H. S.

Mentz, H.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, T. J.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Nixon, C. E.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Purcell, I.

Reitz, D.

Saunders, E. G. A.

Scholtz, P. E.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Eeden, J. W.

Van Heerden B. I. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Venter, J. A.

Watt. T.

Webber, W. S.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; De Jager, A. L.

Noes—47.

Alberts, S. F.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Boydell, T.

Byron, J. J.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Du Toit, F. J.

Enslin, J. M.

Forsyth, R.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Hunt, E. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, P. W.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, J. F.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smit, J. S.

Snow, W. J.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Question accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Sampson negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 5 and 6, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

An industrial council or a conciliation board may consent to abide by the decision of one or more arbitrators. Now it is possible for two or three different bodies on each side to be on that conciliation board, and if you want to appoint a separate arbitrator or umpire it should be by the unanimous vote of the members of the board. I am very much against making any award binding, but my objections to that are not so weighty in the case of all parties consenting. But if there is a non-consenting party to the proposal that the award shall be binding I do not think he should bound.

I do not think we are quite at cross purposes over this. It is a matter of what is meant by “ member.” The clause says: “if both sides agree to the decision of one or more arbitrators, etc.” Yes it does, and in that sense I think the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) moves his amendment. Am I right in supposing that when he uses the word “members” he does not mean individuals at all, he is speaking of component parts as members of the Industrial Council? But by the use of this word “member ” he will see that each individual on the industrial council or the conciliation board is a member of that board. He means that each interest is a member. If he does not mean that, then he might as well move that the clause be deleted. I have had some experience in these matters and I generally find that there is a small minority on one side or the other who will not agree to the principle of arbitration, and if this amendment is inserted here one object in perhaps a council of 50 people can prevent an arbitrator being appointed. The insertion of this will be that any single member of a large industrial council representing perhaps an industry with ramifications all over the country can object and that would be enough.

It may be embodied as “employees.”

If he wants to make the Bill provide that the majority of the council shall agree to make the application I do not consent. But why has the Minister provided for arbitrators? In the Committee’s Bill they provided for one arbitrator. Now I see the Minister has provided for “arbitrators” and likewise for an umpire if they cannot agree. What is our experience in these matters in the printing trade? We have now abandoned that procedure. Only one arbitrator is provided for. They have done away with the umpire for the reason that they have to argue the case amongst themselves first; then if they do not agree and do not want to fight they decide to submit the matter to some impartial authority and abide by his decision. They have got to go through all the arguments again they have been urging for weeks in front of that arbitrator; he has to be taught the technicalities of the trade because the chances are one hundred to one he is some person brought in from outside with no knowledge of the industry. It might be a very highly technical matter, and he has to be instructed in that. Supposing there are two of them and they cannot agree then we have to get an umpire and once more go through the same process. You will find, generally speaking, that it is impossible to find outside the industry two or three impartial persons who know enough about the trade to give a decision on these highly technical or economic matters and we consider the provision of one arbitrator is quite sufficient.

I will tell the hon. member exactly the points in my mind here. A conciliation board can be appointed by a body of employers on the one side and of employees on the other. If there is no sufficient organization of employers and employees, then individual employers and individual employees can nominate their respective sides. There may be any number of these. The Minister himself in some cases may appoint the members of the board. Well, now this section says that an industrial council or a conciliation board may agree to abide by the finding of an umpire. Unless you have the unanimous vote of the individual members of such a board, you may have the majority of one on the conciliation board making the award binding on all the parties to that dispute, and under Clause 9 the parties can then apply to have that made binding on outsiders who have never been on the conciliation board at all. So that by a majority of one, you may not only bind the parties to the dispute, but you can bind outsiders who have never been parties to the dispute at all. I say that that is a power which should not be given to a majority of one. I think an umpire or an arbitrator should only be appointed on these conciliation boards where all the members of the conciliation board consent. I think you must have a unanimous vote. You are going to bind people to abide by this award of a conciliation board in cases where there is only a very small majority. What will happen if an employer has an award made against him which he honestly feels he cannot afford? He will go out of business, and you will have the same thing if the employees have an award made against them which they cannot accept. You cannot make people consent to accept anything in their own business which they honestly think they cannot come out on, and therefore I think that this sort of thing should only be done with the consent of all the members of the board.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber), I think, does not take account of the provisions of sub-section (2).

That is the point.

Sub-section (2) says that the award shall only be binding on the people who in the council have agreed to it. If there is a small minority standing out, they will not be bound. Sub-section (2) is quite clear: “when any award is made by an arbitrator or arbitrators or by an umpire appointed under this section, the terms of such award shall be binding on all parties represented on the industrial council or conciliation board which has agreed to the appointment.”

Yes, the board has agreed, but not the parties.

Yes, the parties.

It does not say the parties.

Well, then, it should be the parties. I quite agree that you cannot make it binding on the people who stand out, but I say that it is wrong to have no arbitrator for these people who want to arbitrate.

I think the Minister has himself misinterpreted sub-section (2). Subsection (2) says the terms shall be binding on all parties represented on the industrial council or board, which have agreed to the appointment, which means that if that board has agreed by a majority of one to appoint an umpire, his award is binding, whether or not they consent.

Dit kom ook my voor, dat in sub-artikel (2) duidelik gekontempleer moet word die partye die bedoel word onder subartiekel (1). Daarom die woord “ooreenkoms” (“agreement”). Ooreenkoms is tusse partye. As daar gestaan het “beslissing” (“decision”) dan sou ek gesê het dat die uitleg van die edele lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber) korrekt is. Maar hoe dit ook al sy, daar blyk uit die diskussie, dat daar onduidelikheid is en ek sou aan die hand gee, om eenvoudig sub-artiekel (1) so te laat lui: “The different parties constituting an industrial council may agree—” Dan is dit duidelik.

I think the Select Committee did not have the point which the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) made before them. There is the question of having anything decided by a majority of one. It should not be possible by one of the members on either side going over to the other to bind the other. There is something missing. Both parties should consent—the majority of each party.

I think the best argument by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) against this is that he does not believe in arbitration. How does this work in practice? All the parties to the dispute would have to send a letter to the Minister saying that they will agree to arbitration. No one man can speak for the whole of his side. The clause distinctly says “an industrial council or conciliation board may agree to abide.” If they do not agree, there can be no arbitrator appointed. It means that the board has to agree. But one man cannot agree on behalf of the board. Obviously an application has to be made through the Minister and he has to be able to say that both sides have agreed, which would mean in fact a majority of these people representing each side. I do not see any obstacle or any necessity to put in anything at all.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 8 put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

—

You can vote against it.

I notice in line 37 the clause states “the parties” and in line 50 it uses the words “the applicants.” Are they the same people? If so, why not use the same word?

I hope the House will not carry this section. What the practical result is going to be that the large unions are going to swamp the smaller ones. They get their own nominees on this body, and they carry their views on this council. I don’t mind it being binding upon them, but they are going to bind the little house round the corner.

In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), it will be seen that in one section you say “the parties apply” and later on you refer to them as “the applicants.” With regard to the objection of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) to the whole clause, I may say that this clause was not in the original Bill. There was a clause to this effect in the Wages Bill which the Government introduced some few years ago. That Bill was carried here, but another place did not receive it, and this Bill now to a very large extent will take the place of that Wages Bill. There was no such clause in the Bill as introduced last year, but before the Select Committee strong representations were made more particularly by the builders. They have got a Whitley Council, the same as the printers, and they urged very strongly for this power. The Select Committee gave this matter very earnest attention, and after a good deal of discussion we decided to revive the clause which we had in the Wages Bill, and I hope the House will agree to it.

I think the clause is a most dangerous clause, for you are going to make an award compulsory upon men who have never been heard. Look at the danger which might follow. You may have a body of employers and employees putting up a conciliation board and conspiring to come to an award which will affect the general public and which will be binding on all tradesmen of that class. The people hit there will not be the employer or the employee, but the public. Take the case of the builders. You may have a body of builders coming before a conciliation board and agreeing to an award to be binding on them which will put up the price of building. Who are hit? the public, and the public are in danger on this clause. Then, again, you have the small employer. It might be quite possible for a large employer doing business on a very big scale to come to terms with his employees which it will be impossible for a smaller man, because his output would not justify the expense. I think this is the most dangerous clause in the whole Bill, and I hope the House will pause before it passes it.

It is interesting to hear this argument from the greatest trade union in the whole of South Africa. This is one of the most vital clauses in the whole Bill. The hon. member refers to the building trade. I wish to say that there is a class of employers who are willing to take advantage of their employees, and it was on that account that the employers saw the Minister and asked for this clause to be inserted in the Bill. The employers in the building trade are desirous of giving a fair deal to their employees and so enable them to work, under decent conditions. The builders have Whitley Councils with their employees, and they insist upon fair conditions and wages, and I think it is only right when masters and men come together and agree upon conditions, that those conditions should extend to employers who are not kept outside the associations, but prefer to remain there.

I think the principle underlying this clause is one which this House will support. Are hon. members prepared to allow the terms of employment governing the industry to be laid down by the majority of fair-minded employers and employees after negotiation or to be dictated by unscrupulous persons? This principle is in vogue all over the world to-day. It is the principle of the Trade Boards Act in the Old Country, where the Government had to step in and lay down the principle that wages and other conditions should be determined on a fair basis. No matter how fair the employer desires to be, he cannot be benevolent at the expense of his business. While outside his organization there are a number of persons who will not join with him and who compete with him, employing any class of labour on the lowest terms. He has to base the conditions of employment in his workshop upon their basis. How can a fair employer in these circumstances treat his employees fairly. The lowest conditions in the industry set the standard and are the conditions which will prevail.

I agree with the last two speakers. We have seen in the discussion on the Wine Bill some results of the position which arises when the body of traders and employers are not closely organized. You get trade blacklegs who take advantage of temporary conditions, and as the result the organization of that trade is broken up. In the building trade, in the clothing trade, and elsewhere you get trade jackals who are willing to strike a hard bargain with their employees and ignore the terms of employment recognized by the trade as a whole. This is a wise provision, because it protects the employer who wishes to observe the decent conditions arrived at between the body of employers, representing the industry and the body of employees. Men who remain outside should be compelled to observe those terms. I think the clause is one which should commend itself to the Committee for adoption.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clauses 10 and 11 put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I want to move a little amendment to make the drafting clear. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 13 put and agreed to.

I beg to move the amendment which appears on page 121 of the Votes of Proceedings, the new Chapter III, under the heading “Ballots.” I do not know if hon. members have made themselves acquainted with the terms of the amendment, which consist of several sub-sections and deals entirely with the question of compulsory ballots. I now move—