asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether his attention has been called to the fact that ex-members of the Army disbanded since June, 1924, whose claims for unemployment benefit have been allowed by the Court of Referees and subsequently by the Umpire, have been refused payment at the Dublin Labour Exchange; in particular if his attention has been called to the case of Henry Free (Serial Number 103445), of 4 Holles Row, Dublin, coach body builder, who joined the Army in 1922, and who, prior to joining, had, it is stated, ten years' stamps to his credit, having only drawn three weeks' unemployment benefit; if he is aware that he left the Army in March, 1925, and has signed the Unemployment Register since the 25th of that month, but has not yet been paid insurance benefit, and whether he will state the reasons for non-payment.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - EX-NATIONAL ARMY MEN'S UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
TOMAS MAC EOIN
I am aware of the cases to which the Deputy refers. A point of law arose as to whether the particular question on which the cases depended—namely, whether contributions were payable in respect of any soldier who was still in the Army after June, 1924, was properly referred to the Umpire and was within his jurisdiction. I have been advised that the Umpire has no jurisdiction to determine whether contributions are payable in any particular case or not, and have received legal opinion as to the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Unemployment Insurance Acts which is being applied to the circumstances of each of these cases.
In the case of Henry Free, the claimant was entitled by reason of his periods of Army service to contributions in respect of the 1922-1923 and the 1923-1924 insurance years. He consequently is not disqualified under Section 8 (4) of the Act of 1920 during the present insurance year, and, subject to satisfying the conditions for the receipt of benefit, will receive it in proportion to his unexhausted contributions.
Can the Minister explain how it is in the specific case of Henry Free the applicant has not been paid anything from March this year, although he has been signing the unemployment register since that time?
That arises out of the complication with regard to the particular matter to which I have referred. It is a very involved and complicated question. Some Unemployment Insurance officials apparently thought this was fit matter for the Umpire and the Court of Referees to decide. The cases were allowed to go before the Umpire and his decision was, in fact, obtained in some cases. Afterwards it was discovered that the question as to whether contributions were, in fact, payable or not, for particular cases, was not for the Umpire. What the Umpire is to determine is, contributions having been legally paid, when is a man entitled to draw benefit? Quite a number of these cases have been held up pending the legal decision as to who is entitled to say when contributions were payable and when they were not. Henry Free happens to be one of these cases, in general with the rest. That one question has been determined in his favour, as far as one item is concerned, and, subject to satisfying other conditions, he will get his benefit.
In respect to the general question, does it not appear clear to the Minister that, as far as the insured persons are concerned, the whole procedure seems to be that one party to the dispute can make an appeal to a court, and when the court has decided against the appellant, then it is found that the court has no jurisdiction, and the applicants for benefit are ruled out? It seems to be a case that if the Department cannot get out of it one way, it is going to get out of it the other way. That is how it appears to the insured person.
It might appear so, if too wide an interpretation were put on what I have said. The fact of the matter is that the Attorney-General had to be consulted in these cases, and we got a ruling. If anybody challenges that ruling, it is a matter for the applicant to bring the case into court.
In other cases the Minister has always said that the Umpire's decision was final. In this case the Umpire's decision was not final after the appeal was made to him, and the applicants are deprived of insurance.
The Umpire's decision is final on matters properly referred to him. This was a matter improperly referred to him. It has been decided that it was improperly referred to him, but there can be an appeal against that to the ordinary courts. We have got our opinion; that opinion can be challenged and overturned if the facts are otherwise.
Does the Minister say it has been decided as improperly referred? By what court?
Not by any court. Possibly I should not have used the word "decided." It has been given to us as an authoritative ruling of the Legal Adviser to the Government that the cases should not have been referred. The applicants in these cases have still the right to go to the court and challenge that opinion. We are acting on that opinion, and our action can be challenged.
Will the Minister guarantee to pay the expenses of the application to the court?
Obviously not. If the advice we have got is so obviously wrong as to lead the court to give costs against us, then we will pay, but not in other cases.
One Department of State apparently says that this is right and proper. Another Department says: "No, it is not," and the second Department appeals against the first, and the decision is against the applicants for insurance.
That is hardly a correct interpretation. One Department of State, at one time, inadvertently sent to the Umpire a matter which it afterwards decided itself was not proper material for the Umpire, and that afterthought of the Department was backed by the opinion of the Attorney-General.
But the Umpire is always the final appeal.
It is not right to put that too far. He is not always the final appeal in matters improperly referred to him. If an appeal made under the Workmen's Compensation Act were referred to him under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Umpire's decision would not be final. I am not in any way weakening the statement that the Umpire's decision is final, in saying it is not final in a matter outside his scope.
What was the Umpire called upon to decide?
He was called upon to decide the question of whether contributions should have been paid for these men or not. That is the matter that it has now been decided was not proper for him to have any say in.