asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he received an application for unemployment benefit from Mr. Michael Tierney, Allenwood South, Robertstown, Naas, County Kildare, and, if so, on what date; when a decision on the claim was conveyed to Mr. Tierney; whether he appealed against the decision, and, if so, on what date; when his appeal was heard; and for what precise reasons his application was disallowed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Naas Unemployment Benefit Application.
19.
Mr. Tierney made a claim for unemployment benefit on the 11th December, 1962, which was disallowed on the ground that he had exhausted his right to unemployment benefit on the 8th July, 1960, and had not requalified in the meantime. He was notified of the decision on the 22nd December, 1962, but did not appeal.
He made a further claim on the 18th February, 1963, with which he lodged his 1963 insurance card bearing four contributions. These contributions, together with twelve additional contributions on the 1962 insurance card lodged with the previous claim would, if valid, have enabled him to requalify for unemployment benefit. It was held by a deciding officer, however, that Mr. Tierney was not employed in employment which is insurable under the Social Welfare Acts during the period to which the contributions on the 1962 card related. As a consequence the claim made in February, 1963 was disallowed.Mr. Tierney was advised accordingly on 23rd May, 1963.
He appealed against the decision invalidating the twelve contributions to which I referred earlier and, following an oral hearing an appeals officer, on 16th September, 1963, upheld the decision of the deciding officer. Mr. Tierney was notified of this decision on the same date.
As this man's means are in excess of the means limit, he is not entitled to unemployment assistance.
Would the Minister now say what was the precise reason given to this man as to why he could not qualify, seeing that he apparently had sufficient stamps?
It was held by the deciding officer and upheld on appeal that the 12 stamps affixed in 1962 were not in respect of insurable employment.
Then in connection with what kind of employment were they alleged to be affixed? In respect of what kind of employment were they disallowed?
That was a question for the deciding officer to decide but I think different descriptions of the employment were given by the employer and the applicant.