From the 3rd to the 4th of September 2024, the Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory (MPILHLT) played host to a conference on labour law biographies. This was the second conference of the Labour Law History from a Global Perspective Network at the Institute. In 2023, the first conference examined the subject of “Collective Workplace Disputes and their Normative Contexts.” For the second conference, the organizers chose a transnational biographical approach to important figures in the history of labour law. Conference organizers JOHANNA WOLF (Frankfurt) and REBECCA ZAHN (Glasgow) provided introductory remarks in the form of a thesis paper describing the state of the field. Both organizers stressed the importance of interdisciplinary work between labour lawyers and labour historians. They said that the biographical method was a good way to examine previously unknown or little-known figures in the field of labour law and helped to bridge the gap between the disciplines of history and law: focusing on biographies and their relationships to institutions and structures showed the deep interconnectivity of an individual’s life and the context in which that person lived and worked.
The first panel focused on biographies of jurists from Australasia. JOHN HOWE (Melbourne) discussed the origins of the Australian Eight Hour Day Movement. Howe examined the political economy behind labour law reform movements among artisans and craftsmen centered in eastern Australia between the 1850s and 1890s. Some of the important leaders of the movement were Chartists who had emigrated from Britain with a strong idea of trade unionism. While Howe mentioned a few biographies of labour leaders, he pointed out that it was only through the collective action of numerous actors that the Australian government passed piecemeal legislation improving labour conditions and shortening workdays. JASMINE ALI (Melbourne) then gave a presentation about Manilal Maganlal Shah (1861–1956), an anticolonial lawyer engaged in activism against the British practice of endentured servitude, advocating for improved labour conditions among workers in Fiji and across the British Empire, especially by abolishing the practice of indentured agreements. After the cancellation of indentured labour and inspired by both the Russian and German revolutions, Fijian workers conducted a general strike in 1920 calling for better conditions. British colonial authorities opened fire on the strikers on the Samabula Bridge and killed one Indian striker. British authorities conducted a crown investigation finding the killing was a “justified homicide” while Manilal presented a countering truth claim in numerous courts saying that the striker had been murdered. In the final paper of the panel, MEGHA SHARMA (Bengaluru) analyzed the labour law jurisprudence of two Indian supreme court justices during a period of massive strikes in the first decade after India’s independence. Anxious to improve the national economy, the judges deployed the language of peace and democracy to settle industrial disputes speedily. The judges attempted to establish legal control over labour which curbed their autonomy and collective power to place them under control of the administrative state.
The second panel concentrated on biographies from the Americas. ERIC TUCKER (Toronto) presented the first paper on the Canadian labour lawyer and Chief Justice of Canada, Bora Laskin (1912–1984). He used Laskin as a prism through which to gain a better understanding of industrial pluralism. Laskin was chiefly known for being an early advocate of industrial pluralism—a view of settling industrial disputes through binding arbitration in which labour and management negotiate terms and conditions. This legalized view of industrial relations initially produced some improvement in workers’ rights but buckled when faced with renewed crises of capitalism. Tucker concludes that a revival of trade unions necessitates a questioning of this system. MARJORIE CARVALHO DE SOUZA (Lecce) discussed the writings of José Thomaz Nabuco de Araújo Filho (1813–1878). After Brazilian independence, de Araújo Filho wrote in favor of codifying private law while also insisting on contract compliance through the threat of forced labour—showing just how much the liberal ideal of codified private law struck up against demands of protecting “public order.” De Souza asked participants to broaden the horizons of labour law history and consider 19th century precedents in their research.
Panel three discussed labour lawyers in exile. In fact, all three presentations discussed German labour lawyers forced into exile by National Socialism. REBECCA ZAHN (Glasgow) discussed the “Landesgruppe deutsche Gewerkschafter” (The National Committee of German Trade Unionists) in British exile. The group was founded in 1941 after several key German trade unionists were released from British internment, including Hans Gottfurcht, Werner Hansen, and Willi Eichler. From then until 1945 the Committee worked with about 700 members writing plans for trade union organization in postwar Germany. Overall, Zahn found that the influence of the Committee was not decisive in the postwar, however it meant that trade unionists had very good contacts with the Allied occupiers in 1945 and arrived back in Germany ready to restart unions in postwar (West) Germany. ROBERT KNEGT (Amsterdam) spoke next about Hugo Sinzheimer (1875–1945) and the influence of his writing on Dutch labour law—especially the law of collective agreements. Knegt explored the legal exchange of ideas between Dutch labour lawyers and Sinzheimer from the first years of the 20th century until the rise of the Nazis. In the final presentation of the panel, LETICIA VITA (Buenos Aires) discussed the lives of two German-Jewish labour lawyers in Argentine exile: Ernesto Katz (1894–1973) and Ernesto Krotoschin (1900–1988). Vita said the impact of the emigres on labour law doctrine in Argentina was rather limited, however they played an important role in the institutionalization of labour law as a distinct field of law in the country.
At the end of the first day of the conference, Rebecca Zahn moderated a fireside chat between three people with experience archiving labour law history: PASCAL ANNERFELT (Frankfurt), ANJA KRUKE (Bonn), and PAUL SMITH (Keele). In the format of an informal conversation, Pascal Annerfelt discussed the papers of Hugo Sinzheimer, which will be made freely available online at the Archive of Social Democracy in April of 2025. Anja Kruke discussed how the Archive of Social Democracy decides to collect and preserve papers. She talked about how material from unions and political material relating to Social Democracy is acquired and preserved. Finally, Paul Smith talked about his work organizing the papers of Lord Wedderburn (1927–2012), a lawyer and politician who was crucial in litigating, drafting and writing about industrial labour law legislation.
The second day began with a panel on European perspectives. ALEXANDER SØNDERLAND SKJØNBERG (Oslo) discussed Paul Berg (1873–1968), one of the first Norwegian labour lawyers. Berg took inspiration from German labour law—especially the ideas of a peace obligation and the normative impact of collective agreements—in the lead up to the Norwegian Labour Dispute Act of 1915, which was fundamentally influenced by his role in founding labour law as a distinct field in Norwegian law. Then, IRENE STOLZI (Florence) spoke about the Italian academic and politician Gino Giugni (1927–2009). Stolzi weaved a discussion of Giugni’s life with the history of labour citizenship in post-Fascist Italy. The new democratic state included rights to work rather than the duty of labour in a Fascist corporative state. Giugni broke with the past to see a pluralist view of labour law inspired by Hugo Sinzheimer. This influenced Giugni’s role in the Worker’s Statute of 1970, however at the end of the “glorious thirties” of economic growth, Italian labour law embraced a neo-corporativist turn until the end of the millennium. At the end of the panel, ANNA QUADFLIEG (Frankfurt) presented about Eliane Vogel-Polsky (1926–2015) a Belgian woman of Polish-Jewish origins who survived the Holocaust hiding among Benedictine nuns to become a legal activist for women’s equality in labour in the postwar. She represented female flight attendants in several cases before the European Court of Justice demanding that the gender equality clause of the European Economic Community’s founding treaty become binding law on all member states.
In the middle of the day, the participants left the conference room to visit the Stolpersteine (stumbling blocks) memorial in front of the house of Hugo Sinzheimer and his family. Afterwards, the group visited the Akademie der Arbeit (Academy of Work). There, they were told about the Academy’s history as an educational institution founded by Hugo Sinzheimer and several other academics and trade unionists.
The last panel of the conference was chaired by Nina Cozzi. ADELINE BLASKIEWICZ (Paris) discussed the French politician Albert Thomas’s (1878–1932) role in establishing international social legislation. Specifically, Thomas was instrumental in establishing the International Labour Office (ILO). While Thomas hoped to turn France into a model for international labour, in fact France never accepted the labour standards called for by the ILO. To close the presentations, VIRGINIA AMOROSI (Naples) discussed Paul Pic (1862–1944) who wrote student texts in the late 1800s to teach workers about social problems in industrial societies. Pic wrote easily understandable labour law texts about how the law of contracts could solve competition, industry, and antagonism between capital and labour. Pic focused on comparative legal methods to call for transnational reforms.
Throughout the conference, a recurring question introduced by participants and audience members alike was about the relative merit of individual biographies to labour law history. Trade unions, government ministries, the pressures of market economics and not least working-class activism leads labour (law) historians to ask about the structural forces behind historical events. As the product of labour law is the result of countless actors and social movements, it was asked whether any single biography merits the title of a “founder and shaper of labour law”? Several questions asked whether labour law would have been any different if the labour lawyers in question had not existed.
Numerous participants pointed out that biography was the best way to discuss connections and entanglements between individuals and institutions on a global level. In his final comment, THOSTEN KEISER (Gießen) pointed out that many of the biographical subjects experienced a similar formative “education experience” (Bildungserlebnis) of being an outsider: often persecuted, forced into emigration, and generally coming to labour law with the hopes of improving the lot of working-class people. Furthermore, in the twentieth century many of the biographies followed a similar trajectory of socialist activism in the first half of the twentieth century to the reformist institutionalism of the latter part of the century.
The similar trajectories of many biographies raised the question of absent biographies and the global trends which were not represented. Rebecca Zahn said in her comment that the organizers wanted to include African perspectives on labour law history but struggled to find contributors. The author of this report asked about the absence of labour law biographies from the conservative political spectrum ranging from representatives of the Christian union movements to the advocates of a conservative revolutionary labour law opposed to unions but in favor of supposed harmony between employers and employees on the basis of ethnic nationalism. The discussion provided evidence for both the promise and pitfalls of the biographical approach. Biographies are inherently pointillist. The individual labour lawyer biography can be representative of certain trends, but labour history is a field deeply saturated in social history. In discussion and comments, the biographies provoked thought about possible connections between disparate biographical stories, intellectual developments, and the changing nature of labour and law in the twentieth century from a global perspective.
Conference overview:
Johanna Wolf (Frankfurt) / Rebecca Zahn (Glasgow): Thesis Paper and State of the Art
Panel I Australasia
Chair: Prakhar Ganguly (Frankfurt)
John Howe (Melbourne): The Eight Hour Day Movement and the Development of Australian Labour Law
Jasmine Ali (Melbourne): Transnational Legal Lives and Fiji’s First General Strike 1920: Manilal Maganlal Shah
Megha Sharma (Bengaluru): Mediating Justice: Jurisprudence in India
Panel II The Americas
Chair: Gabriel Busch de Brito (Frankfurt)
Eric Tucker (Toronto): Bora Laskin and the Shaping of Canadian Labour Law
Marjorie Carvalho de Souza (Lecce): Slavery and Free Labour Under the Same Quill: Joze Thomaz Nabuco de Araujo and the Making of the Law of Labour in Nineteenth-Century Brazil
Panel III Lawyers in Exile
Chair: Magdalena Gebhart (Frankfurt)
Rebecca Zahn (Glasgow): German Trade Unions in British Exile
Robert Knegt (Amsterdam): Hugo Sinzheimer’s Influence in the Netherlands
Leticia Vita and Julieta Lobato (Buenos Aires): The Impact of German Exiles on Labour Law in Argentine: The Case of Ernesto Kary and Ernesto Krotoschin
Fireside Chat: How do we Remember Labour Lawyers. The Archiving of Legacies
Chair: Rebecca Zahn (Glasgow)
Pascal Annerfelt (Frankfurt) / Anja Kruke (Bonn) / Paul Smith (Keele)
Panel IV European Perspectives
Chair: Manfred Weiss (Frankfurt)
Alexander Sønderland Skjønberg (Oslo): Paal Berg and Norwegian Labour Law
Irene Stolzi (Florence): Gino Giugni
Anna Quadflieg (Frankfurt): Eliane Vogel-Polsky
Panel V European National Perspectives
Chair: Nina Cozzi (Frankfurt)
Adeline Blaskiewicz (Paris): Between Paris, Geneva and Beyond: Albert Thomas, From National to International Labour Legislation
Virginia Amorosi (Naples): Paul Pic and the Others. The Transnational Insight of European Legal Culture on Labour at the Turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries
Final Comment
Thorsten Keiser (Gießen)