asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he is aware that William Behan, Moorefield Road, Droichead Uua, Army No. 23,820, who attested on the 11th May, 1922, and who was discharged from the National Army on the 8th day of December, 1923, was awarded special benefit in accordance with Section 3 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924, on his claim of December 17th, 1924; that although he signed the register until the 25th March, 1924, he received only £2 7s. 6d. benefit, which he has now been requested to refund; that on appeal his claim was disallowed by the Board of Referees on the ground that the applicant was not unemployed; whether the Department charges Mr. Behan with receiving unemployment benefit whilst working for his brother; and, if so, whether he will give Mr. Behan an opportunity of vindicating his character by bringing the case before the District Justice.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - UNEMPLOYED BENEFIT CLAIMS.
William Behan, of Moorefield Road, Droichead Nua, lodged a claim to special benefit under Section 3 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924, at Droichead Nua, on the 17th December, 1924, on which he was paid special benefit to the amount of £2 7s. 6d. Subsequent inquiry disclosed that the claimant resided with his brothers and sisters at Droichead Nua, that they kept three cows, the milk of which was sold, and that the claimant assisted on occasion in delivering the milk. One of his brothers carried on business as a blacksmith, and prior to the claimant's period of Army service he had served as an apprentice smith with his brother for 3½ years. His claim was disallowed and he appealed against the disallowance to the Court of Referees, before whom he appeared and admitted that he was now in exactly the same position as he was before joining the Army. The Court of Referees held that if the claimant was remaining unemployed it was for the purpose of getting benefit and they recommended that the claim be disallowed on the statutory ground that claimant was not unable to obtain suitable employment. This recommendation was accepted by the insurance officer and the claim is, therefore, disallowed. The effect of this decision is that the claimant is liable to repay the benefit which he has already received on the claim. The claimant is not charged with receiving unemployment benefit whilst working for his brother and the latter part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
Is the Minister aware that this man's brother cannot find work enough for himself to do, and that, therefore, he has no work for the claimant?
These are all the facts which, the Deputy must realise, came before the Court of Referees. The Court of Referees was so far dissatisfied with the allegations made by the claimant that they recommended that the claim be disallowed. The claim was, in fact, disallowed after they had examined into the facts. I cannot go into the details of all these cases myself. I simply get the information from the Court of Referees.
In my opinion, it is not a fair decision.
TOMAS MAC EOIN
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state on what grounds the claim for Unemployment Insurance Benefit made by Thomas Ryan, Red Gap, Rathcoole (Serial No. 30439 22ZA) who was employed by the Dublin County Council for upwards of fourteen years, has been disallowed.
Thomas Ryan, Redgap, Rathcoole, unemployment insurance book No. Dublin/30439, claimed unemployment insurance benefit at the Dublin Employment Exchange on the 5th January, 1925. The insurance officer, after full consideration of Mr. Ryan's circumstances, disallowed the claim on the statutory grounds that the claimant was not unemployed and not unable to obtain suitable employment. The insurance officer's decision was contested by Mr. Ryan, and referred to the Court of Referees, and finally to the umpire, both of whom agreed with the insurance officer's decision. In the circumstances it is regretted that benefit cannot be paid on this claim.
Can the Minister say apart from the technical phraseology used, what was the reason for the refusal?
It is one of these many cases of persons residing with relatives who have holdings of land in which there have been established prima facie reasons for making a disallowance. This case has been gone into on three occasions, and three different Boards have upheld the decision that the claim should be disallowed.