Special Hearings — Business Hearings — 1997-11-13

MR ANGUS: Thank you, Chairperson. I'd like to lead off on the introduction by talking a little about Seefsa itself and the background and then I'm going to leave to our president, Mr Colin Campbell to draw some conclusions before we deal with any questions you may have.
 We'd like to start by thanking the Commission very sincerely for giving us the opportunity of making a submission to you and also for making time available to us to participate in this business hearing.
 Briefly by way of background.  Seefsa is a federation of 41 independent employer associations.  These associations represent the different sectors and regions of the metal and engineering industry in South Africa.
 The total membership of our associations is just under 3 000 individual companies and together these companies employ some 70 percent of the industry's total work force and that amounts to something over 300 000 workers.
 Seefsa and its predecessor organisation, Safeema, have been in existence since January 1943 and that is to say for some 54 years.
 We understand that the purpose of these business hearings is to assist the Commission to arrive at an understanding of the political conflict in South Africa over the period 1960 to 1994 and in particular the roles of business and labour in the society during this period.
 Your letter to us, Chairperson, I refer to three broad themes and the second of these themes really forms the main focus of our submission.
 That is business, Government and the trade unions.  The reason for this focus is because of the particular role which Seefsa has played over the years in the area of industrial relations in general and especially in the negotiation of industrial agreements, covering workers in the industry.
 By way of background I should explain that the metal and engineering (indistinct) in South African is an organised industry;  that is to say an industry where agreements between employers and trade unions are struck at central level and of an extended, broadly speaking, to all workers and all employers in the industry on a national bases.  
 That's what we mean when we refer to an organised industry.  These agreements cover comprehensive terms and conditions of employment for workers, such as annual leave, pay, hours of work and so on and also very extensive social security benefit schemes, such as pension and provident funds, sick pay, medical aid, agreements relating to the training of workers and so on.
 Seefsa has played a key role in the negotiation of all of these agreements and I'll be talking a little bit more about that later on.
 We provided the Commission with a fairly detailed account of Seefsa's involvement in matters which seemed to us to be relevant to the Commission's investigations during the years in question.
 We've also submitted together with that very detailed document, a much briefer one which comments on events and developments which we believe to be perhaps of particular significance.
 It's not our intention here today to try summarise those documents.  What we'd like to do in the relatively short time available to us, is just to highlight three of the matters referred to in our written submission and then to draw some conclusions, which we haven't included in our written submission.
 The areas we'd like to highlight, are firstly the removal of job reservation in the industry.  Secondly, the recognition of Black trade unions and thirdly, conditions of employment for the industry's work force.
 As far as the removal of job reservation is concerned, we've heard already in the hearings over these three days that the concept for job reservation for White workers was introduced into the industrial conciliation act in 1959.
 In our submission we've pointed out that from the time of that introduction, Seefsa apposed this legislation at the highest levels of Government.
 We quote the words of a Seefsa president a year after the introduction of the legislation, where he said:
"We remain convinced that this system will need a dove tail into a system of collective bargaining, nor succeed in producing anything, but frustration amongst those who were likely to be deprived both of livelihood and opportunity."
We also quote the words of the Seefsa president a year later in 1961 where he said:
"Perhaps the most disturbing bar to full development through the efficient use of man power, is that implied in the provision of work reservation appearing in our laws.  I mean disturbing in every sense and I believe that its removal from the statutes would have a beneficent effect in all quarters wherein it has been generally regarded with dismay."
We've pointed out in our submission that this opposition continued over the years, both in the form of statements from successive presidents and also in the form of direct representations, made to the Minister of Labour against specific job reservation, determinations in our industry.
 Some of these were successful, other unfortunately were not.
 On this subject, we further point out that in 1978, the last (indistinct) of discrimination were removed from the metal industry's main agreement when Seefsa became a signatory to the Urban Foundation code of employment practice.
 On the face of it, it may appear that Seefsa's opposition to job reservation, removal of work place, discrimination were fairly straight forward and obvious things to do.
 But I think it is important that the Commission bear in mind that throughout this period Seefsa was negotiating on an ongoing bases with powerful White trade union organisations which reflected the views, the prejudices of the (indistinct) White constituency at that stage.
 So steps which we took in these areas had to be negotiated with these union groupings, they certainly couldn't simply have gone ahead on a unilateral bases and without their support.
 Secondly, the recognition of Black trade unions.  We point out in our submission that from the time of the beginning of the period that we're talking about in these hearings, 1961, Seefsa objected to the fact that the law contained no mechanisms whereby Black workers could participate in negotiations determining their conditions of employment at industry level.
 Representations made to the Minister of Labour, to the Department of Labour during that early period of the 1960's in this regard, were unsuccessful.
 Our submissions also records Seefsa's continued efforts to persuade Government to allow for some form of direct representation for Black workers in the industry's centralised negotiations.
 These efforts resulted in the 1970's in Government allowing firstly, White government officials representing Black workers and subsequently Black work force representatives directly to participate in these negotiations.
 In 1977, the then director of Seefsa, Errol Drummond, was one of 12 commissioners appointed to serve on the so-called Wiehahn Commission, which as we all know ultimately lead to the extension of trade union rights to Black workers.
 We further record the fact that in 1980, the metal industries' industrial council became the first in South Africa to admit Black trade unions to membership.
 The early 1980's were marked by concerted efforts on the part of Seefsa to persuade the other Black trade unions in the industry to follow this example and as a consequence and after very prolonged negotiations, the largest Black trade union in the industry, then called Mawu, today called Numsa, joined the council in 1983.
 The last issue, Chairperson, that I'd like to deal with is the question of conditions of employment for the industry's work force and particularly during the years in question and the role which the employers in the industry played in developing a comprehensive set of employment conditions for workers in the industry.
 I've already referred to the fact that in the metal and engineering industry in South Africa, agreements on conditions of employment, social security benefits and so on, are reached at central level between the employer organisations which are members of Seefsa and the industry's trade unions, then extended broadly speaking, to all employers in trade unions in the industry.
 This is a system of centralised collective bargaining which is by no means universally popular amongst employers.  There are many employers in our industry who are opposed to the system and certainly many employers in other industries as well.
 Many would argue that it's contrary to the dictates of the market and that it fails to take into account the differing needs, the differing cost structures of different business organisations.
 The Commission has in fact heard some of these arguments put forward during these business hearings.
 However, I think that very few people would argue against the fact that the system has produced a far more comprehensive system of working conditions and benefits for workers than would otherwise have been the case.
 The underlying philosophy of the system is that it's fundamentally undesirable for companies to compete with one another at the expense of their workers. 
 In other words, on the bases of low wages and inadequate employment benefits.   It seeks, if you like, to level the playing field in this area, by taking these matters out of the competitive arena, by bargaining them across the industry as a whole.
 The result of this practice has been a set of employment conditions which for many years has far exceeded those of nearly all other major industries in South Africa and which continue to do so today.
 In our submission we point out, for example, that an industry wide pension and life assurance fund for Black workers was introduced as early as 1966 into the industry.
 Today the combined assets of our industry pension and provident funds amount to some 22 billion rands and these funds have provided benefits to many thousands of workers who have either retired from our industry or left it for reasons - for other reasons over the years.
 More over these funds have been controlled on a joint bases between the employers and the trade unions in the industry from the out set.
 We also point out that during the late 1970's and early 1980's, deliberate steps were taken to introduce a more equitable wage structure into the industry's main agreement, particularly for lower paid workers.
 Our submission also records the fact that when in 1989, the Minister of Man Power refused to extend the industry's main agreement to non-parties, because it included for the first time, the then politically sensitive June the 16th as a special public holiday for workers in the industry, Seefsa and the industry's trade unions instituted legal proceedings against the Minister in the supreme court.
 This resulted in the Minister reversing his decision in an out of court settlement.
 Chairperson, I've really tried to emphasize the role that the industry has played in this area, because of the many statements that have been made during the course of these hearings, to the effect that during the years in question, during the Apartheid years, Black workers were often treated (indistinct) and that is no doubt.  It has been the case and that they were treated as a kind of commodity to be bargained in the cheapest possible way.
 I'm simply trying to point out in this part of our submission, that we have -  in a limited sense, attempted not to deal with workers in our industry in that way over this period.
 That's all that I want to say, Chairman, and I'd like to now pass over to Mr Campbell to draw some conclusions.