asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that Mrs. Tubbritt, 22 Baker Street, Waterford, has been refused unemployment insurance benefit on the grounds that her employment did not come within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and if he will state on what grounds it was decided that her employment did not come within the scope of these Acts.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - WATERFORD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIM.
Mrs. Tubbritt has been refused unemployment insurance benefit because there were no contributions to her credit. Contributions which had been paid for Mrs. Tubbritt by her employers in the erroneous belief that they were legally payable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, could not be admitted because it was found that she was not an employed person within the meaning of these Acts. The grounds on which it was decided that Mrs. Tubbritt was not an employed person within the meaning of the Act were that her employment was employment in domestic service, and that she was not employed in any trade or business carried on for the purpose of gain. It has already been intimated to Mrs. Tubbritt that an application for the refund to her of the value of those contributions would be entertained.
Is the Minister aware that Mrs. Tubbritt claims that she was employed as office cleaner, and that her work comes under the category of charwoman, rather than that of domestic service?
If that is her claim she is definitely out.
Does not a lot depend on the occupation that Mrs. Tubbritt was engaged in herself?
It does, and it has been certified that she was an office cleaner.
Is the Minister aware that Mrs. Tubbritt was employed by this bacon factory the same as many other women, and that she was dismissed through slackness of work with half-a-dozen others? Is he also aware that she was entitled to a week's holidays under the agreement come to between the general body of the factory workers and their employers, and that she considers that she is not really a domestic servant at all, inasmuch as she works in the factory and does the same work as the others. Would the Minister say if the women who clean out Leinster House and Government Buildings are liable to pay unemployment insurance?
That analogous case I cannot answer at the moment. To say merely that this woman is insurable because she was employed in a factory does not bring her within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. If she was performing service which is of the domestic service type in a factory, then she is not insurable, and she does not come within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. In regard to this woman, it is alleged that a previous claim to benefit had been admitted on her behalf, but on that occasion she had signed herself and had been admitted, as a cleaner in a bacon factory; that is to say, she had been admitted as a bacon factory worker, but later she signed as being an office cleaner at the bacon factory. That proved to be the case, that that actually was her employment, and that is not insurable.
Would the Minister be surprised to learn that I know cases of women who are office cleaners in Dublin and not connected with any kind of factory and they receive unemployment benefit?
If the Deputy will give me the names of these women we will get the benefit stopped.
I would like to know whether a cook employed in a restaurant is entitled to come within the category of unemployment insurance, or if that sort of employment is called domestic service because it is analogous to the work that a cook does in a house.
I think further questions on this matter ought to be put on the Order Paper.