asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he is aware that builders' labourers in Clonmel, who are unemployed because of a trade dispute between the contractors and carpenters employed on a housing scheme in the town, have been refused unemployment benefit under Section 17 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the labourers have no connection with the dispute, he will make regulations to prevent a recurrence of such a case.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Act, 1952.
I am aware of the refusal of unemployment benefit in the cases referred to in the question. Benefit was refused in these cases in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 (2) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, under which a person who has lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, farm or other premises or place at which he was employed is disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit. These provisions could be altered only by amending legislation.
Similar provisions have operated from the inception of compulsory insurance against unemployment in this country. On several occasions the operation of the provisions has been considered in consultation with associations of employers and workers, but it has not been found possible to devise satisfactory alternative provisions.
Is the Minister aware that the men in question are not in any way responsible for the trade dispute and that, therefore, it appears to be a grave injustice to refuse them unemployment benefit?
Unfortunately, that is the case, that workers who have no hand, act or part in the creating of the dispute are deprived of unemployment benefit or assistance, when a dispute occurs, but the section is so framed in the 1952 Act that they must suffer in that respect. That has been the position even since 1920. I know, and I think most Deputies who have been interested in this problem know, that the last Minister for Social Welfare and his predecessor made determined efforts to try to improve that position but so far no solution seems to be forthcoming from the trade unions, employers or any section. What I propose doing, as a final effort, in consultation with the two trade union congresses, is to try and frame a new section or provide an amendment which will improve a position which, I think all of us will agree, is unsatisfactory.