asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a decision has yet been reached on the appeal of workers who were deprived of unemployment benefit as a result of the ESB shiftworkers' strike.
15.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Benefit.
14.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the outcome of the appeals in respect of unemployment benefit for Saturday, 15th April, 1972; and if the principle of a six-day working week is now accepted.
With your permission, a Ceann Comhairle, I propose to reply to Questions Nos. 14 and 15 together.
The outcome of the appeals referred to is not yet available. The present position in the Dublin and Cork test cases which I mentioned in my reply to Deputy Barry on 16th May is as follows. The Dublin appellant has now furnished an explanation of his non-attendance at the hearing fixed for the 8th May and re-listing of the hearing is under consideration. A hearing has been fixed for the 7th June at Cork in the Cork test case.
With regard to the second part of Question No. 15 I wish to point out, in case there has been misunderstanding, that where the claimant's employment has been terminated, unemployment benefit is paid on the basis of a six-day week irrespective of the duration of the normal working week. As I stated in reply to the Deputies on the 26th April the disallowance by deciding officers of Saturday, 15th April, in the particular circumstances arising out of the recent ESB dispute was based on the fact that the generality of the workers affected were conditioned to a five-day working week and were laid off only on a day-to-day basis without termination of their employment. I also mentioned that disallowance of the Saturday might nevertheless not apply in certain situations—for example, short-time or casual employment, depending on the facts and circumstances in the particular case.
The issue on the cases now under appeal is whether disallowances imposed by deciding officers in the circumstances which obtained were correct. Accordingly, it would not be proper for me to say anything further pending determination of the appeals.
Can the Minister say whether the rate for the week was divided by five or by six? The Minister will appreciate that if a decision is made generally to divide by five there would be very few complaints from anybody but the Department of Social Welfare cannot have it both ways. They cannot decide whether to divide by five or by six at any time it suits them to change their minds.
The amount payable is divisible by six—six working days—but that has nothing to do with what may be held to be a day of unemployment or waiting days. This particular case was not my decision but it was obvious that Saturday was not a day of unemployment for men who did not work usually on Saturdays.
If somebody is unemployed for a week which, in the particular case in mind would amount to five days, surely he should be entitled to a full week's benefit and, therefore, the amount should be divided by five and not by six. The sooner the Minister tells that to his officials the better will be the position for all concerned.
I do not think there is necessarily any relevance between the two matters.
Is it not laid down in the 1952 Act that benefit is paid at one-sixth of the weekly rate?
Yes.
If a person is not at work from Monday to Friday, inclusive, will he be entitled to five-sixths of the weekly rate or to the total weekly rate?
In any case the amount is determined on the basis of a six-day week.
From what the Minister has said workers who are on a five-day week cannot be paid a full week's benefit. The situation is rather stupid. The Minister says it is not his fault but he should clear the matter with his officials all of whom are guaranteed a full week's pay. If they were the people who were depending on the benefit, the reaction would be different.