With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take questions Nos. 49, 51 and 50 together in that order.
Under a decision by a statutory deciding officer on test claims for unemployment benefit on behalf of nearly 300 production employees at Clara of the firm in question, there was a refusal of benefit as from 5th February, 1969, when an official picket was placed on the premises by maintenance craftsmen in pursuance of a trade dispute. The disallowance of benefit from that date was made under the provisions of section 17 (2), as amended, of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, which precludes payment of unemployment benefit to a person who has lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at his place of employment, except in certain defined circumstances. It was held by the deciding officer that exception from the disqualification was not applicable in the cases in question as the workers concerned belonged to a grade or class, members of which had become involved in the dispute.
A copy of a communication dated 20th February, 1969, from the firm in question was received but it did not in fact add anything to the information already before the deciding officer. The facts available to that officer indicated that the comparison being made with the Waterford case is not a valid one.
The decision in relation to the Clara cases is under appeal and will be the subject of a hearing by an appeals officer. In the circumstances, any further statement by me on the issue under appeal would not be appropriate.
With regard to the question regarding the deputation, the allegations made by the Deputy are not in accordance with the facts. A sizeable group of at least 12 persons from the firm in question, who did not identify themselves as members of a trade union committee, arrived at the headquarters of my Department without prior notice on the date in question and were met with the minimum of delay by a senior official. It soon became quite evident that their purpose was not, as suggested, simply to hand in the letter referred to earlier. They made it quite clear that they also hoped by their presence to force an immediate reversal of the decision affecting the unemployment benefit position of a large number of workers at the firm concerned who had lost employment by reason of a trade dispute. Even though the correct statutory procedure for contesting the decision on appeal was fully explained to them they indicated that they were not prepared to leave without a favourable decision. The statement regarding the presence of a large Garda Síochána force is, I need hardly say, quite incorrect. It should not be necessary for me to add that attempts to influence decisions in this manner outside the normal statutory channels are entirely futile and must, of course, be thoroughly deplored.
