asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state what are the reasons for disallowing Unemployment Benefit to Michael Goulding, No. 19 New Lane, Waterford, and, further, whether he will reconsider his decision in this case.
WRITTEN ANSWERS. - UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT CLAIM.
Michael Goulding claimed Unemployment Benefit at the Waterford Employment Exchange on the 21st January last. Reference to his account with the Unemployment Fund showed that the only contributions paid for him were as follows:—
3 in the 1920-21 Insurance Year.
4 in the 1921-22 Insurance Year.
None in the 1922-23 Insurance Year.
9 in the 1923-24 Insurance Year.
As, therefore, no contributions had been paid for him in the 1922-23 Insurance Year, he was disqualified for the receipt of Unemployment Benefit by sub-section 4 of Section 8 of the Act of 1920. He is not entitled to the contributions payable under Section 7 of the Act of 1923 for men who have served in the Army, because less than 10 contributions had been paid for him prior to the date of his enlistment in the National Army. It is regretted, therefore, that his claim could not be allowed. The disqualification lasts until 12 contributions have been paid for him, exclusive of those paid up to the end of the 1921-22 Insurance Year.