asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he has received complaints from Daniel Lowry, Owen Brennan and Frank Conway, who were employed as mine workers in the Wolfhill Colliery, Leix, regarding non-payment of unemployment insurance benefit, and if he can state what steps he has taken or intends to take in order to see that these and other miners concerned are paid the amounts which they are entitled to under the Act.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - WOLFHILL MINE WORKERS. (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.)
Daniel Lowry, of Skehna, Ballylinan, Athy, lodged a claim for unemployment benefit on the 25th November, 1924, on which he was paid benefit for 42 days. As only 42 contributions had been paid for him the amount of benefit paid exhausted his credit in the Unemployment Fund, and there is no legal power to pay him further benefit until further contributions have been paid for him.
On a claim made on the 9th December, 1924, Owen Brennan was paid benefit in respect of every day for which he furnished evidence of unemployment. A further claim made by him on the 26th January, 1925, was disallowed for six weeks on the statutory ground that he had left his employment voluntarily. Mr. Brennan furnished evidence of unemployment for only two days after expiration of the period of disqualification, and he was not, therefore, entitled to receive any benefit on that claim.
Frank Conway was paid benefit for 15 days on a claim which he made on the 24th November, 1924. In making that claim he was unable to lodge an unemployment book, and benefit could only be paid after contributions due in respect of his claim by the Wolfhill Collieries had been collected. He lodged a further claim on the 28th February last, but as he appeared to have exhausted all his rights in the Unemployment Fund by benefit drawn on the previous claim, his last claim could not be allowed. He represented, however, that contributions had been paid for him in respect of an earlier period of employment, but was unable to give any reference to the number of his unemployment book. The Department, however, took action with a view to tracing his previous account, which was eventually located in the Ministry of Labour in London, and has now been transferred to Dublin. On this account it was possible to allow further benefit to the maximum amount of benefit that can be made in the 5th benefit year, and all benefit due to date was paid Mr. Conway last Saturday.
With regard to the claim to benefit of persons employed at the Wolfhill Collieries, benefit will, of course, be allowed as in other cases on the contributions to their credit in the Unemployment Fund in the proportion of benefit to contributions fixed by the Act. It appears, however, that the Wolfhill Collieries, Ltd,. have not paid, and have not been asked by their employees to pay contributions for the full periods of employment in some cases. Efforts have been made to collect the arrears, and as the undertaking is now in the hands of the Official Receiver a claim is being addressed to him.
Is the Minister aware that, in the case of Daniel Lowry, as in the case of several other men employed but likely to be unemployed in the course of a day or two, deductions have been made from their wages over a very long period, and that their cards have not been stamped? Will the Minister undertake to make representations to the proper authorities in regard to complaints of that kind, and will he see that the men when they do become unemployed are credited from the fund with the amount of contributions that have been deducted from their wages by the owners of the collieries?
The Deputy speaks of representations. If he confines himself to representations I can accede to his request: that is to say, I can make representations to whoever is in charge of the Wolfhill Colliery. With regard to this matter, it goes further back than the present, that is this question of arrears, and as the employees were not particular about their claims and were not particular about their own contributions, as they have the right in their own hands of enforcing the payment of benefit by getting the arrears paid up by the employers, I do not see that it is for me to take action. I can make representations, but that is all.
Will the Minister explain whether the right is in the hands of the employees who have carried out their part as far as the Act is concerned, and does he not admit that there is a responsibility on him to see that credit is given from the fund to the employees concerned in this, as well as in every other industry, for the money that has been deducted from their wages—money that has not been applied to the stamping of their cards?
Under Section 24 of the Act of 1920 the employees can take proceedings to recover any money due to them, on the basis of it being a civil debt, by ordinary proceedings. I am speaking now of the Wolfhill Colliery case and not of any other. In that case I say these men were definitely negligent about their own interests.
Will the Minister explain how?
By not insisting that the employers contribution was paid. They have the remedy in their own hands, and if they do not use that remedy I cannot see at the moment that it is for me to take action which they can take themselves, and which they have a better right to take than I have.
Is not the Minister aware that it is the duty of the Insurance Inspectors to see that the cards are stamped, and not the duty of the men? A man might be in employment for 12 months and money for the stamps might be regularly deducted from his wages, and he may not be aware whether his employer is stamping the card or not.
I have files here stretching over a considerable period from which it appears that the insurance officials made repeated representations to the colliery people and to the employees concerned that the stamps were not being put on, and time and again the phrase occurs in the reports that "the men do not seem to want to have the contributions paid." Now, where such an allegation is made, if there was no legal remedy in the hands of the men, obviously I would have to take action, but where the men have the remedy in their own hands and where they have not moved, I do not see that I should be more careful of their interests than they are themselves.
Is the Minister aware that the British Government prosecuted me because my employees did not wish me to stamp their cards, and that I was fined one penny with no costs?
The prosecution was doubtless good, but the fine was absurd.
As there is an Official Receiver acting now in this case to whom representations have been made, and as, according to the Minister, this Official Receiver is acting on behalf of the National Land Bank, which is now a Government Department, will the Minister whisper into the ears of the Minister for Finance to see that the money is paid, and the matter is put right?
The Deputy misunderstood the phrase I used. I said a claim is being addressed, not that it has been addressed.