asked the Minister for Social Welfare in what way the employment of an appellant (details supplied) in the period 24th April, 1967 to 11th September, 1967 differed from previous employment for the purpose of payment of sickness benefit; and if he will define employment in the context of relationship between master and servant.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sickness Benefit Applicant.
47.
Arising out of a claim for unemployment benefit in September, 1967 by the person referred to, a question arose as to whether the employment contributions on which the claim depended were paid in respect of employment which is insurable under the Social Welfare Acts. The contributions, which were at the agricultural rate, were stated to be in respect of employment as a gardener. Following inquiries made in the matter it was held by a deciding officer that the employment in respect of which the contributions were paid was not under a contract of service and, consequently, he decided that it was not insurable under the Acts. That decision was subsequently upheld by an appeals officer following a hearing at which the employee and employer's widow attended and gave evidence. As a consequence, the claim for unemployment benefit which depended on those contributions was disallowed. However, a claim for disability benefit made by the person concerned on 29th December, 1967 was not affected by the decision as that claim depended on the contributions paid during the 1966 contribution year. He was paid disability benefit from the date of claim to 26th December, 1968 but, from 3rd June, 1968, the commencement of a new benefit year, the rate of benefit was reduced by 12s 6d a week due to the invalidation of 1967 contributions. He exhausted his right to disability benefit on 27th December, 1968 and has not since requalified. Even if the 1967 contributions were not invalidated for disability benefit a claim would fail because a minimum of 13 additional contributions after 27th December, 1968 would also be necessary in order to requalify.
This employee had previously requalified for unemployment benefit on foot of 14 full rate employment contributions on his 1966 insurance card. This employment was, in accordance with the employee's statement, in connection with the employer's business as a grocer and publican and as there was then no reason to doubt the insurability of the employment no question was raised as to the validity of the contributions.
Employment under a contract of service, i.e., employment in the relationship of master and servant is not defined in the Social Welfare Acts. Neither is there any universal test or hard and fast definition for determining the existence of a contract of service. In every case it is a question of fact and of the construction of the contract. Determination of the existence of a contract of service is involved in decisions on the insurability of employments. These decisions as well as decisions relating to entitlement to benefit must, in accordance with the Social Welfare Acts, be given by deciding officers and appeals officers who are statutorily appointed and I have no power to interfere with their decisions.
Is the Minister aware that the claimant was previously paid for work of the same nature for which payment on his claim is now denied? Is the Minister further aware that this claim was turned down on the basis of similar work?
No question as to the validity of the contributions arose in the first instance. In this instance, the deciding officer decided that the employment was not insurable and that decision was upheld by an appeals officer. Unless some further facts come to light at a later stage, the question is closed.