asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a person (name supplied) in County Meath was not paid unemployment benefit in view of the fact that he has been travelling approximately 20 miles to work.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meath Unemployment Benefit
34.
The claim for unemployment benefit of the person named was disallowed by decision of a statutory deciding officer on the ground that he had lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at his place of employment. The disallowance of benefit was made under the provisions of section 17 (2), as amended, of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, which precludes payment of unemployment benefit to a person who has lost employment for this reason, except in certain defined circumstances. It was held by the deciding officer that exception from the disqualification was not applicable in the case in question as the person concerned belonged to a grade or class of workers members of which employed at his place of employment were participating in the dispute.
Would the Minister not agree that this man could have stayed at home and drawn unemployment benefit for the full period, but instead he went 20 miles to work and because of a dispute in his job he was locked out? Would the Minister not consider that in these exceptional circumstances he should have been paid unemployment benefit for the short period involved?
I do not think that merely because a person is not a member of a trade union he should be paid unemployment benefit and others not.
The Minister does not understand. The question of trade union membership does not arise at all.
It does.
It does not arise. The question is whether or not the man who travelled 20 miles to work was entitled to be paid benefit. If he had stayed at home he would have been on benefit all the time; instead of that he made a big effort to get to work and the Minister refused to give himself and his family enough to live on when he was out of a job through no fault of his own.
The man was out of a job because of a trade dispute.
The Minister does not like trade disputes or trade unions or anything like that.
I do, yes. I am surprised at the Deputy arguing that because a man is not a member of a trade union——
The man was a member of a trade union and the Minister should be aware of that.
——he should be treated more favourably than members of a trade union.
The Minister does not know what he is talking about.
That is what I am talking about, and that is what the Deputy is talking about.