asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether his attention has been called to the application, dated 22nd September, 1925, of Mr. Michael Mannion, Castlecomer, who has since died, for a refund of stamp money due to him on attaining the age of sixty years, and whether the deceased's sister-in-law, Mrs. Mannion, has been informed by the Department that as deceased had received a total of £72 17s. 6d. in unemployment benefit and had only contributed £3 5s. 9d. she was not entitled to any refund under Section 25 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, and, further, whether, as Mrs. Mannion denies the authenticity of the receipts purporting to be signed by the deceased and held by the local Labour Exchange, he will direct that further inquiry be made into the claim of Mrs. Mannion.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFUND CLAIM.
The application for a refund of contributions by Mr. Michael Mannion, Castlecomer, was dealt with in February last. According to the records available to the Department, the applicant had received a total of £72 17s. 6d. in Unemployment Benefit between 1921 and 1925. He had paid in contributions £3 5s. 9d. between 1920 and 1925, when he first became insured. In consequence, his legal personal representative. Mrs. Mannion, was duly notified that no repayment could be made. Subsequently Mrs. Mannion represented that her brother-in-law did not receive £72 17s. 6d. in benefit, and that he had been in constant employment, and consequently had more contributions to his credit. The matter was further investigated on receipt of these representations, and the various claims made by the applicant, which were duly signed by him, together with a record of the number of contributions affixed to each of the Unemployment Books exchanged by the applicant in the years 1920 to 1925, were sent down to the local officer, Castlecomer, who was instructed to explain the position to Mrs. Mannion, and to lay the actual claims before her. This he did, and, while she remained doubtful as to the receipt of the benefit by the claimant, she did not deny his signature to the claims.
The receipts for the actual payments have been examined and compared with the claimant's signature, and leave no room for suspicion. The actual contributions paid are as follows:
|
Year: |
||
|
1920-21 |
19 |
|
|
1921-22 |
26 |
|
|
1922-23 |
15 |
|
|
1923-24 |
22 |
|
|
1924-25 |
22 |
From this it will be seen that the claimant had in fact considerable periods of unemployment in each Insurance year, and I am satisfied on all the available evidence that the benefit recorded as paid was, in fact, paid.
In view of the fact that Mrs. Mannion denies that these receipts were signed by the deceased, will the Minister not consider the matter further?
If there is any fresh evidence, certainly we will have the case inquired into, but I have the investigating officer's authority for stating that though Mrs. Mannion remained doubtful as to the receipt of the benefit, she did not deny the signature. It is quite clear that Mrs. Mannion had been in some way misled by Mr. M. Mannion, because he, in fact, had considerable periods of unemployment, while he said he had none, and he had signed receipts for these contributions.