With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 30 and 32 together.
I am aware that claims to unemployment benefit which were made by most of the men referred to were refused under the statutory decision and appeal procedures.
In the exercise of his statutory functions, a deciding officer disallowed the claims under the provisions of section 17 (2) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, on the grounds that the claimants had lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at their place of employment and that they were consequently disqualified for the receipt of unemployment benefit. The trade dispute in question was the British seamen's strike, which caused the suspension of British Railways shipping services into and out of Dublin. The deciding officer held that this dispute embraced the British Railways berth at Dublin Port, the place where the dockers in question were employed by British Railways.
Appeals were lodged, on a test case basis, against the decision of the deciding officer. Following an oral hearing which extended into a second day and at which there was representation of all parties concerned, including trade union and legal representation of the claimants, an appeals officer upheld the disallowance of the claims.
In accordance with the provisions of section 44 (5) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, the decision of the appeals officer is in this case final and conclusive. If, as I understand was indicated in the course of the appeal, the men's trade union—the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union—feel that the decision involves an issue on which they are entitled to seek recourse to the courts, I shall, of course, facilitate the union in that respect as far as I can.
As the Deputy is no doubt aware, title to benefits under the Social Welfare Acts is determined by experienced officers of my Department who are appointed under the Acts to be deciding or appeals officers for the purpose. While these officers are, and are required to be, free and unrestricted in discharging their statutory functions under the Acts, I have no doubt that they suitably inform themselves on legal and other questions relevant to the proper discharge of those functions, whether in particular cases or otherwise.
I should like to take this opportunity to correct a misconception which has been publicised in connection with the decision in this case. According to Press reports, an officer of the IT & GWU has stated that the effect of the decision was that if workers in any employment in this country were laid off because of lack of business or inability to get raw materials from abroad, they would be denied unemployment benefit. The decision has no such effect. Provided that the dispute is not at the premises or place where they are employed, workers who lose employment by reason of lack of business or shortage of materials as a result of a trade dispute will continue to be eligible for unemployment benefit. I wish to make it clear also that the trade dispute disqualification in the case of the British Railways dockers has not affected those of the general body of dockers whose employment opportunities were diminished by the curtailment of shipping generally. Payment of unemployment benefit has been made in such cases subject to the usual qualifying conditions.