asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that Jeremiah Clifford, of Ardmoniel, Killorglin, County Kerry, labourer, and 20 other unemployment assistance applicants from the Killorglin district, were deprived of their unemployment assistance in the months of July and August, 1943, because they refused to accept work from a merchant in the town of Killorglin who, at the time, was involved in a trade dispute with an employee; and, if so, whether he is now prepared to authorise the payment to the applicants of the amounts of the unemployment assistance which they were deprived of.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Kerry Unemployment Assistance Claims.
Employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute is not suitable employment for the purposes of the Unemployment Assistance Acts, and a person who declines an offer of such employment may not be deemed to have failed to comply with the statutory conditions. The applications for unemployment assistance of Jeremiah Clifford, Ardmoniel, Killorglin, and 19 others were disallowed because they refused to accept employment which was duly determined in accordance with the Unemployment Assistance Acts to be suitable employment for them. The situation in question was not vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute. All but one of the men concerned appealed to the Court of Referees against the decision given on their applications but their appeals were unsuccessful. Unemployment assistance is not payable to these applicants for six weeks from the dates on which they refused the employment.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that Jeremiah Clifford and three other men attended at the merchant's premises along with the man on strike, John Foley, and that John Foley said in the presence of the merchant that he objected to any men working there as he was on strike for an increase in wages? Is he further aware that the man on strike, John Foley, was subsequently re-employed by the merchant and received an increase in his wages?
My information is that John Foley, the workman concerned, resumed work at his original wages. I am also informed that there was no trade dispute.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that John Foley objected to people accepting work from the merchant and that he intimidated people with a view to preventing them from taking work with him?
That is a different question altogether—the question of intimidation.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that all these men were anxious to work and that they would have worked were it not for Foley's objection?