asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the reasons for refusing unemployment benefit to Michael Dooley, Mayhora, Castlecomer.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - REFUSAL TO PAY UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS.
Michael Dooley, Mayhora, Castlecomer, made a claim to unemployment insurance benefit on the 13th February, 1927. His claim was disallowed by the Insurance Officer under Sub-sections (ii) and (iii) of Section 7 (i) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, on the grounds that he was "not unemployed" and "not unable to obtain suitable employment." Mr. Dooley has appealed against this decision, and his appeal will be heard by the Court of Referees at an early date.
What is the definition of "unemployment"? I understand that this man has a few acres of land and a large family and that he has to eke out an existence by getting employment from the County Council. You compel the County Council to insure him and then when he becomes unemployed you refuse to pay him benefit. I would like to know what is the law in regard to the holding of land. Am I to understand that if a man has only half an acre of land that your local officer can rule him out of unemployment benefit?
The case in question will now be decided by the Court of Referees to whom the applicant has appealed.
Will the Parliamentary-Secretary say what is the maximum number of acres of land which an unemployed man is entitled to hold in order to enable him to get unemployment benefit under the Act?
It does not depend on the amount at all.
What instructions are given to the insurance officers with regard to the number?
None.
He uses his own discretion?
Yes; decided by cases.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state why unemployment benefit has been refused to Miss Kathleen Dooley, Kilkenny Street, Castlecomer.
Miss Kathleen Dooley, Kilkenny Street, Castlecomer, made a claim to benefit on the 7th of November, 1927, which was disallowed by the Insurance Officer under Section 7 (1) (ii) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, on the ground that the claimant was "not unemployed." Miss Dooley appealed against the disallowance to the Court of Referees, which recommended:—
1. That benefit be disallowed in respect of the period 14th November, 1927, to the 16th December, 1927, inclusive, on the ground that the claimant was "not unemployed" in that period when she was undergoing a course of instruction with the Castlecomer Poultry Society;
2. That benefit be allowed in respect of unemployment proved outside of the period 14th November, 1927, to 16th December, 1927, inclusive.
All benefit due accordingly to the claimant in respect of the days of proved unemployment, viz.: twenty-eight days' benefit, has been paid.
As this girl could not find employment she had to go as an apprentice, and are we to take it from the Minister's reply that any person assisting as an apprentice is ruled out, and that persons in her position who are working without remuneration in kind or in cash may be at the loss of their unemployment benefit?
The Court of Referees ruled according to the statute that she was not unemployed, and therefore that she could not be paid during that period.