asked the Minister for Social Welfare why the workers employed by a firm (name supplied) in Drogheda, County Louth, have been refused unemployment benefit although qualified.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Benefit.
25.
The claims for unemployment benefit of a number of employees of the firm in question were disallowed by decision of a statutory deciding officer on the ground that they had lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at their place of employment. The disallowance of benefit 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 for this reason, except in certain defined circumstances which were held by the deciding officer not to apply in the cases in question. Appeals against the decisions in a number of cases have been received and these will be submitted for decision by an appeals officer.
Surely the Minister must be aware that in this case the firm referred to had men employed on the erection of a new cement factory? Does he not know this has no connection whatever with the production of cement? In view of the fact that employees of other firms on the site have been paid unemployment benefit would the Minister say why the employees of this particular firm have been singled out for this treatment?
I do not want to prejudice the case by saying anything now since it has gone before the appeals officer. I understand the works in question were picketed.
That is not correct. It is the erection of a new cement factory which is in question here. Does the Minister not know that a number of people who have been employed casually on this site by firms with no connection whatever with Cement Limited, except that they are employed as contractors by that firm, have been refused benefit with the result that a lot of people have had a very hungry four or five weeks? They were working while Cement Limited was closed for a month or six weeks. Never mind the appeals. Will the Minister look into this matter? The appeals officer will simply confirm what has been done previously.
I doubt if that would be the procedure. If what the Deputy has said is correct, I am sure it would be very much in their favour. I am afraid there was a picket.
This is a question of facts and the Minister can find out for himself if he wants to.
I have made inquiries.
The Minister must not have made very many.
I will make more, I can assure the Deputy.