asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he is aware that a number of part-time dockers and coal yardmen employed in Dundalk were refused social welfare benefit because they were affected by a trade dispute which took place from 3rd April, 1967 to 22nd April, 1967; and if, in view of the fact that the dockers' normal employment was one day per week and that of the yardmen two days per week, he will instruct his officials at Dundalk to have benefit paid for the days they were normally unemployed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dundalk Social Welfare Benefit.
46.
I am aware that claims to unemployment benefit or applications for unemployment assistance made by the men referred to were disallowed in some cases by a deciding officer exercising his statutory functions. The ground of disallowance in the cases in question was that the men had lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at their place of employment and that they were consequently disqualified for the receipt of unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance as appropriate.
Some of the men have lodged appeals against the rejection of their claims and their cases are being submitted to an appeals officer whose decision in the matter will be final and conclusive.
Is the Minister aware that if these men, instead of working one day a week, did not work at all, they would have been allowed to continue drawing their benefit but that because they were anxious to do whatever work they could get, they were disqualified for the days on which they were working?
Under Section 17, subsection (2) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, the men are not entitled to draw unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance. There is a fairly definite administrative rule applying to the average time of work and this works out in favour of a certain number of those who are unemployed but against another section.
Would the Minister not agree that this is a regulation which should be changed as quickly as possible, irrespective of what happened in this case?
I would not be in a position to answer that at the moment.
If a strike takes place and people are affected in one way or another, though not responsible for the strike, should they be punished?
They were on strike.
They had nothing to do with the strike.
Questions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 postponed.