Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jan 1926

Vol. 14 No. 2

CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - LIMERICK UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT CLAIM.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he is aware that the Limerick Court of Referees have disallowed the claim of Mr. James Feeney (Book No., Limerick 13857) to unemployment benefit, and have refused him leave to appeal; whether he is aware that some dispute arose as to whether Mr. Feeney's employment as canvasser for the Limerick Steamship Company from May, 1922. until November, 1924, was an insurable one; whether, on the Department of Industry and Commerce deciding that it was an insurable one, his card was stamped by his employer, and whether he can state why, in view of the fact that Mr. Feeney had stamps to his credit, his claim was disallowed and leave to appeal refused.

A claim to unemployment benefit lodged by James Feeney at Newcastle West on the 23rd November, 1925, was disallowed under the first part of Section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, no contributions having been paid in respect of the claimant in the four last preceding insurance years. The claimant appealed against the decision to the Court of Referees, who, in the circumstances, had no alternative but to recommend disallowance. The Court of Referees has discretionary power in the matter of allowing appeals to the Umpire which they exercised in this case, the claim being clearly one which could not be allowed. Subsequently, on the 22nd December, arrear contributions to the number of 135 were collected in respect of employment which the claimant had had with the Limerick Steamship Company between May, 1922, and November, 1924. Those contributions have been duly placed to the credit of the claimant and the payment of them has had the effect of putting him in benefit as from the date on which they were paid, but does not create any retrospective right to benefit. Payment of all benefit which has become due since the date of the payment of the contributions was offered to him last Friday, which he refused on the ground that he was entitled to more. Section 24 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, provides a remedy for grievances arising from the non-payment of contributions by employers.

If I persuade this man to reconsider his attitude, would he be able to get the payment offered him?

I think so.

Top
Share