asked the Minister for Social Welfare why certain employees engaged on the erection of the new cement factory at Platten who were laid off during the cement strike, were not paid unemployment benefit, while all other employees who were laid off on the same site, were paid.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Benefit Payment.
13.
As to the persons whose claims were disallowed, I would refer the Deputy to the reply which I gave on 14th May, 1970 to his previous question regarding the matter.
As to certain other persons who became unemployed at the construction site during the cement workers dispute and whose claims to unemployment benefit were allowed, the position is that these claimants satisfied all the statutory conditions for receiving that benefit and no question arose of their being disqualified under the provisions of section 17 (2) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, as amended.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the site at Platten on which a new cement factory is being constructed had nothing whatever to do with the strike of production workers in Cement Ltd., and can he explain why one small group employed by a sub-contractor were refused unemployment benefit while all other employees on the site, who were laid off, including one man in the group which was disallowed were in fact paid? Can he explain why this peculiar decision was made? Was it because the decision was made and those concerned did not want to lose face by changing the decision that a number of young men with large families were left hungry for a considerable period? Would the Parliamentary Secretary care to explain how that happened?
I am afraid I have not got that information. The only information I have is that officers of my Department visited the place and found there was a strike in progress and these workers refused to pass the picket and that is the reason why they were not paid.
May I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that all the necessary information was made available by other Deputies and by myself to his Department and that, in fact, one group went on strike for a portion of the day but they had nothing to do with the original strike. They were not engaged in the production of cement and any inquiry at all would have proved that these men were not involved in the manufacture of cement and would the Minister, even at this late stage, have a further inquiry made with a view to having the men paid the money they are due?
Two or three men were marching up and down with a placard saying there was a strike on. That is why they were not paid. I will have the matter further investigated and I will communicate with the Deputy.
I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary, but I should like to make it clear there was no one marching up and down when the officer called.
They were on strike.
Then he went to the wrong place. He must have gone into Drogheda. I will show him around the next time he comes down.