Emil Lederer · 1920
This recorded commission speaking turn concerns the powers of works councils in appointing management within the proposed organization of the coal industry. Lederer’s intervention proceeds from identifying the issue, through citing Werner’s proposed wording for § 11(2), to drawing a procedural consequence from a resolution already adopted. Its central claim is narrow: the cited provision must be deleted to remain consistent with that earlier decision.
Es handelt sich da um die Kompetenz der Betriebsräte.
English translation: The issue here is the competence of the works councils.
“Competence” means institutional authority. The proposed provision would require the Reich Coal Directorate to notify the relevant works committee immediately of any intended appointment of a mine or other covered enterprise’s manager. The committee could then object within eight days, but only on specified grounds:
Gegen die Ernennung kann der Betriebsausschuß binnen acht Tagen, nachdem er Kenntnis davon erhalten hat, Einspruch erheben, wenn wichtige berechtigte Interessen des Betriebes oder der Arbeitnehmerschaft des Betriebes dadurch verletzt werden.
English translation: The works committee may object to the appointment within eight days after receiving notice of it if important legitimate interests of the enterprise or of its workforce would thereby be infringed.
The proposal thus distinguishes an objection right from appointment authority. It protects both enterprise and workforce interests, requires an exhaustive statement of reasons, and assigns the decision to a committee of the Reich Coal Council. Lederer presents this mechanism as the concrete form of works-council influence over management selection.
After Wissell interjects that the provision must be struck out, Lederer concludes:
Das müßte in Konsequenz des vorhin gefaßten Beschlusses gestrichen werden.
English translation: That would have to be deleted as a consequence of the resolution adopted earlier.
The earlier resolution is not reproduced, so the excerpt cannot establish its content or Lederer’s broader position on worker participation. Its significance lies in showing how an institutional proposal was tested against an already adopted decision: a carefully delimited right of objection becomes the object of deletion through an appeal to procedural consistency.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian