The year 1944 was one of the busiest for the union. In the midst of the trouble, which started in February, we became involved in a series of court actions, which wasted a great deal of our time and energy.
In November 1943, I was called into a small dress factory to settle a dispute caused by the employer, quite unjustly, accusing a worker of stealing a garment. It took only a few minutes to settle the matter,, but as I was leaving, one of the workers came to me and whispered: "Mr. Sachs, there are some funny things going on in this factory. You ask Inez Mentos". I sent for her and, when she came to my office, she was trembling with fear. I managed to get her to calm down and then she told me her story:
"I worked for a clothing factory in Cape Town for seven years and had to support a family of six. Because of domestic troubles, I left Cape Town for Johannesburg. In the train, my bag, with 11s.-all the money I had-was stolen and I arrived in Johannesburg penniless. I lodged with my sister, whose husband is a waiter, earning £15 a month, and I had to share their only room. I was desperately anxious to get work and applied for a job. The employer's son took me to the Industrial Council office to get a certificate of service and, when the council agent asked how long I had worked in the industry, I was going to say seven years, but 'Mr. X' junior replied instead: 'Eighteen months'. A certificate of service was issued to me on the basis of eighteen months' experience. I was afraid to contradict my boss, as I was urgently in need of work".
I duly checked the wage register and found that she had been underpaid the sum of £24 5s. 7. I called on "Mr. X", asked him to refund this amount, and warned him that he would get into trouble if he persisted in these malpractices. "Mr. X" refused to pay and said: "Prove it. It is my word against hers".
I then submitted the matter to the council and both the employer and the worker were invited to attend a meeting, called for the 17th December 1943. "Mr. X" did not attend. Inez Mentos, obviously very nervous, told her story to the nine employers and nine union representatives in a perfectly straightforward manner. The employers believed her, but instead of condemning "Mr. X", they began to cross-examine her with such viciousness that the girl broke down. It was abundantly clear that she knew nothing about the agreement for the industry, about certificates of service, or even the rate of pay to which she was entitled. As she was penniless, her one and only concern was to get a job.
Disgusted with the attitude of the employers, I told them that, if their wives and daughters had found themselves in similar distressing circumstances, they, too, might not have dared to contradict their employer. I moved that the employer be requested to refund the back pay and be warned against contravening the agreement in future. The employers voted against my motion and asked that the matter should go to court. No doubt, they had in mind that, in court, with the employer's word against the worker's, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a conviction.
The case was heard early in February. "Mr. X", who had at first pleaded not guilty, changed his plea to guilty, was cautioned and discharged. The magistrate ordered that the amount underpaid should be put into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not given to Inez, as she had been guilty of collusion.
Sections 53, 54 and 55 of the Industrial Conciliation Act give the court power to order an employer, convicted for underpayment of wages or other remuneration, to pay the amount to an officer of the court and, where there has been collusion between the employer and the worker, to order that the whole, or a portion of the amount, be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Before an order is made, however, the court must inquire: (i) whether the employee agreed to work for less, (ii) whether, if he did so agree, he knew of his rights under the agreement, and (iii) the circumstances under which the worker so agreed; and the inquiry must form part of the record. In this case, the worker's legal rights were completely ignored. Inez had not agreed to work for less wages, she had not known her legal rights, and she .was destitute.
Indeed, her money was now being confiscated without any inquiry being held.
The committee of the union was indignant when it heard this news and decided to invite the ten women workers at the factory concerned to a committee meeting. This took place on the 9th February and in the course of it I explained that what was involved was not merely a simple underpayment, but an insidious attempt to reintroduce the reprehensible methods of faking wage registers and certificates of service, which the union had eradicated only after many years of bitter struggle. The women also mentioned numerous other complaints and transgressions of the agreement in the factory. It was left to the workers themselves to decide what action to take, and they unanimously decided not to report for work the following day and to terminate their employment. Anxious to avoid trouble, I 'phoned the employer at his home and told him of this decision. I asked him to refund Miss Mentos the amount he had underpaid Tier, or he would have no workers the following day. He became argumentative and I put down the receiver. Next morning the women stayed away from work.
The laws are enforced promptly and rigorously against workers and, a week later, the ten absentees received a summons to answer .a charge of striking unlawfully. On May 6th 1944, they were all found guilty and were each sentenced to a fine of £15 and to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. The latter part of the sentence was suspended for two years on condition of good behaviour.
On the 16th May 1944, I received a summons to answer a charge of extortion:
"That the accused is guilty of attempting to commit the Crime of Extortion.
"In that, whereas on the 2nd day of February 1944, a certain "Mr. X" and another had been convicted of failing to pay to a certain employee, Miss Inez Mentos, who was a member of the Garment Workers' Union, the minimum wages prescribed by certain Industrial Agreements relating to the Clothing Industry, Transvaal;
"And whereas the Court had determined the amount underpaid to be £24 5s. 7d.
"And whereas the said Court had on the aforesaid date ordered the said "Mr. X" and another to pay to the Divisional Inspector of Labour, Johannesburg, the said amount of £24 5s. 7d. for payment to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
"Thereafter, to wit upon or about the 9th day of February, 1944, and at Johannesburg, in the district of Johannesburg, the said accused, being the General Secretary of the said Garment Workers' Union, did wrongfully, unlawfully and extensively demand from the said "Mr. X" that the said "Mr. X" pay to him forthwith at the office of the said Garment Workers' Union, Johannesburg, the sum of £24 5s. 7d.
"And did then and there threaten the said "Mr. X" that unless he paid the said sum of money forthwith he, the said "Mr. X", would have no girls working in his factory the following day.
"And did by means of such threat wrongfully and unlawfully attempt to extort and obtain from the said "Mr. X" the sum .of £24 5s. 7d."
We consulted Mr. N. E. Rosenberg, K.C., and, when he read the charge, he said: "Mr. Sachs, there is no case against you". I said to Mr. Rosenberg: "I have the utmost respect for your forensic knowledge, but I am going to be convicted". He looked at me with the disdain of the eminent lawyer for the layman, but when in due course I appeared in the Magistrate's Court, he soon saw the significance of my remark. The prosecutor, Mr. Vermooten, apart from subjecting the president of the union. Miss Scheepers, to uncalled-for indignities, furiously attacked the closed shop, which was quite irrelevant to the case.
On 28th July 1944, I was found guilty and sentenced to a fine of £40, or one month's imprisonment with hard labour. I also had to listen to a lecture from the magistrate.
Our enemies were overjoyed. For years, they had tried unsuccessfully to get me convicted. Now, at last, they had succeeded, and on an infamous charge of blackmail. In all, ten members of the union had received vicious sentences, a destitute working girl had been deprived of money due to her, and the general secretary of the union had been convicted of attempted extortion. But their rejoicing was premature.
We noted an appeal in respect of all three matters, and this was heard in the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, Pretoria, before Mr. Justice Solomon and Mr. Justice Brebner on the 15th October1944.
The application for review in the matter of Inez Mentos was heard first. While Mr. Retief, who appeared for the Minister of Finance, was arguing, Judge Solomon interrupted him with the question:
"Mr. Relief, is the Minister of Finance so hard up that he needs the £24 of a poor working girl who had been unlawfully deprived of it?"
Within two hours, the court gave judgment, granting the application, with costs, against the Minister of Finance. Inez Mentos got her £24 5s. 7d. and the Minister had to pay many hundreds of pounds in costs.
As I sat in court, listening to the argument, I naturally felt elated with our just and speedy success. But our real victory was still to come. Before the court adjourned for lunch, Judge Solomon said:
"Mr. Rosenberg, the court will not require to hear you. After lunch, we shall hear Dr. Yutar (who appeared for the Crown) as to whether there was any conscious impropriety present in the appellant when his motive and object was clearly to protect a worker who had been defrauded".
In the morning, before the court started, I was introduced to Dr. Yutar, the very able and determined assistant to the Attorney General. He greeted me affably: "Mr. Sachs, I have heard .a lot about you. I don't think you have much chance in the appeal". I replied jocularly: "I have also heard a great deal about you, Dr. Yutar. As for the appeal, my case is in the hands of a very competent craftsman. Let him take care of it".
The court resumed at 2.30 p.m. and, as soon as Dr. Yutar commenced his argument for the Crown, Judge Solomon very angrily remarked: "Dr. Yutar, do you suggest that a trade union official, who takes steps to protect a member of his union, who had been defrauded of her wages, is guilty of extortion? Rubbish, rubbish"! Dr. Yutar battled manfully, but the judge became increasingly annoyed and continued interrupting him, observing on one occasion:
"How could the Attorney-General bring a case of this nature to court?"
I have spent many a day in the Supreme Court and have never seen a judge so indignant. Everybody knew that I had been dragged into court, not because I had committed a crime, but for entirely different reasons. Almost before Dr. Yutar could finish his argument Judge Solomon delivered the judgment of the court, not only upholding my appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence, but also telling the magistrate who had convicted me a few most uncomplimentary truths. The following are quotations from the judgment:
"The magistrate, in preparing his reasons for judgment, realised the necessity of finding that the appellant, in making his demand and threat, was seeking to gain an advantage for himself. Being unable to find any facts to support what a Court of Justice would normally deem to be an advantage, he had recourse to a flight of fancy. . . . On the evidence produced at the trial, it would be lamentable if a conviction for such a mean and cowardly crime as extortion were attached to the appellant for life. Fortunately, we are able to rectify the injustice. The appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside".
Once more, justice triumphed over lawlessness. Congratulations poured into the union from all over South Africa and the masses of garment workers were jubilant.
On the advice of counsel, we did not proceed with the appeal in the case of the ten girls who had been convicted for unlawful striking. Instead, we sent a memorandum to the Minister of Justice, Dr. Colin Steyn, and asked him to give the matter his consideration. By order of the Governor-General, the sentences were changed to a caution and discharge.
Before the appeals were heard, the union decided to teach "Mr. X" a lesson which he and other employers, who might be tempted to copy him, would remember. We went through all the cumbersome provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act and called a lawful strike. Section 79 of the Act reads;
"No proceedings shall be brought in any court of law against any trade union or employers' organisation, or against any member, office bearer or official of any such union or organisation, in respect of any wrongful act committed by that union or organisation, or by that member, office bearer or official on behalf of that union or organisation, in furtherance of a strike or lock-out; . . ."
Taking full advantage of the protection afforded us by this section, we called a mass demonstration outside the factory, which was attended by several thousand workers, and issued instructions to all members of the union not to take employment there. In due course, "Mr., X" was forced to sell his factory.