asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he is aware that Terence Connolly, Drumgoan, Carrickmacross, an insured person with more than three years' unemployment stamps to his credit, was out of work from the 30th June to the 28th September, 1928; that on the 2nd July he applied for and was refused unemployment benefit; that he appealed against this decision and the Court of Referees upheld his claim; that the Insurance Officer appealed against the decision of this Court, and that a second Court of Referees was set up on the 19th September, which Court again decided in favour of the claimant; that the Insurance Officer had the matter referred to an Umpire for final decision, and that the latter disallowed the claim, and whether he will state the grounds on which the latter decision was based.
CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - DISALLOWANCE OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIM.
Terence Connolly, of Drumgoan, Carrickmacross, claimed unemployment benefit on the 2nd July, 1928, and furnished evidence of unemployment up to and including the 27th September, 1928. The claimant had to his credit in the Unemployment Fund one hundred and thirteen unexhausted contributions in respect of which he would have been entitled to so many days of unemployment benefit if he was able to satisfy the statutory conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit, one of which is that he must prove that he is continuously unemployed. On the facts of this case the Insurance officer found that this statutory condition was not fulfilled, and accordingly he disallowed the claim.
The claimant, in exercise of his right, appealed to the Court of Referees, which recommended that benefit be allowed. Further inquiries having been made and the fresh information elicited that the claimant on the former occasion had stated his holding of land to be four acres whereas it is in fact over nine acres, the case was again submitted to the Court of Referees for reconsideration, but the recommendation of the Court on this occasion was the same as on the first.
As the Insurance Officer was unable to agree with the Court's recommendation, the case was sent to the Umpire, who, in giving his decision that the claim must be disallowed, stated that the claimant's holding is too large not to provide suitable employment for him when he is not working for wages.
This decision is final.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that only five acres of the nine-acre holding is arable land?
The valuation of the land is £10.
Including buildings. In view of the fact that this man is again employed under the same terms, will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to give him an exemption certificate? He is either entitled to insurance benefit when he is unemployed or he is not. I presume that the Parliamentary Secretary will not insist — certainly, he should not insist — that he should pay contributions and yet not be entitled to benefit.
The law lays down certain procedure and the umpire has to decide on the facts before him.
In view of the fact that all the evidence does not appear to have been before the Minister's Department when this matter was being decided, and in view of the further fact that this decision was based on his occupying nine acres of arable land, half of that land not being arable land but waste, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider this case?
All these facts were before the umpire and he decided against the claimant.
In view of the fact that contributions have been extracted from this man, will the Parliamentary Secretary state that, should he become unemployed again, he will be entitled to benefit under similar conditions?
Not so long as he is circumstanced as he is at present.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to grant him a certificate of exemption, seeing that he is not going to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefit?
That is a hypothetical question.
Is not this a case of compulsory contribution?
This is not a hypothetical question for the man who is paying for the unemployment insurance stamps. It is a very practical question for him. He is either entitled to unemployment benefit or he is not. If he is not, he should not be asked to stamp his cards.