asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state why unemployment benefit was refused to Patrick Kehoe, Main Street, New Ross.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - New Ross Benefit Claims.
No claim for unemployment insurance benefit has been received at New Ross Branch Employment Office or the Waterford Exchange from a workman named Patrick Keogh of Main Street, New Ross. It is thought probable, however, that the Deputy's question refers to Patrick Keogh of Mary Street, New Ross. This workman applied for an unemployment insurance book on 22nd July, 1926, and a total of 78 contributions were paid in respect of him. He claimed benefit on the 29th October, 1928, and received in respect of that claim 31 days' benefit. Subsequently the question was raised as to the insurability of the employment in respect of which contributions had been paid for him, and it was then found that the employment was not insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. Accordingly, the contributions in question, not having been legally payable, were of no effect, and the 31 days' benefit received by him in respect of them had to be regarded as erroneously paid. Mr. Kehoe made a further claim to benefit on the 20th November last which was disallowed by the Insurance Officer under Section 7 (1) (i) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, as no contributions have been properly paid into the Unemployment Insurance Fund on his behalf.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what prompted this decision or how does the Ministry arrive at the decision that this man was not in an insurable occupation?
The decision was that the particular kind of work that he was doing did not entitle him to come under the Act.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this man's occupation has been as a carter under the county council? This man was employed by the day and by the week. When did that cease to be an insurable occupation?
Very full inquiries have been made from the county surveyor as to the kind of work that this employee was doing, and we ascertained that he did not come under the Act.
If a carter is employed by a public body, day in and day out, and if he receives a weekly wage from the employment that he has had, is he not in insurable occupation—does the Parliamentary Secretary know that he was not doing contract work?
This particular worker was not employed in an insurable occupation.
On what grounds does the Parliamentary Secretary base that opinion?
May I ask if there have not been appeals to the court on that question and would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what has been the result of the appeals as to whether carters were insurable?
There is no record of any appeals. It is open to this employee to make representations. In the usual course an appeal is open to him.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary receive further representations on this man's behalf?
I will be glad to go fully into the matter and receive any further representations that may be made.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce why unemployment benefit is not being paid to Patrick Sheehan, William Street, New Ross.
It does not appear that a claim to benefit has been received at either the Branch Employment Office, New Ross, or the Employment Exchange, Waterford, from any person of the name and address quoted by the Deputy. If, however, he will furnish me with further particulars such as the date when, and the office at which the claim he refers to was lodged, I will have further enquiries made, and the result will be communicated to him in due course.