asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that an insured person (details supplied) in County Donegal who applied for unemployment benefit on or about 4 January 1982, has not yet been paid any benefit and that he has not been notified by the deciding officer as to the reasons on which benefit was refused; the precise reasons benefit was refused, indicating also the date on which the decision to refuse benefit was made and the form in which the decision was communicated to the insured person; if he is further aware that it is impossible for an insured person to appeal against a decision when the reasons for refusing benefit have not been specified by the Department; and if he will arrange for the payment of arrears on unemployment benefit pending notification in writing to the insured person concerned of the decision of the deciding officer.
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
The person concerned, in common with other employees of the same employer, lodged an unemployment benefit claim on 4 January 1982. As it appeared that there was a trade dispute detailed inquiries were made both from the employer and the trade union representing the employees. When the inquiries were completed a test case was selected and referred to a deciding officer for the determination of eligibility to unemployment benefit. When a large number of workers are involved — in the present instance some 40 — it has been accepted practice to take one case as representative of all claimants of similar circumstances and deal with the matter on this basis. After examination of all the evidence the deciding officer was of opinion that employment was lost by reason of a trade dispute and the test claim was disallowed under the provision of section 35 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981.
Each employee was advised of the disallowance at the local office at which he was signing as unemployed. In the case of the person concerned in the Deputy's question he was advised orally at the branch employment office, Ballybofey, on or about 5 March 1982 and told about his right of appeal. In reply he stated he did not wish to appeal.
An appeal had however been lodged in relation to the test case and an oral hearing took place on 26 February 1982. The employees were represented by officers of their trade union and the appeals officer explained that the test case was representative of all the employees who were involved in the issue. On the 2 March 1982 the appeals officer upheld the disqualification of the claim on the grounds that employment was lost by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at the claimant's place of employment. The claimant was accordingly covered by the test case appeal.
The officers of the trade union were immediately informed of the decision of the appeals officer. In this connection the manager of the employment exchange was assured by a trade union official representing the claimants that all claimants, including the person referred to by the Deputy in the question, were fully advised of developments in relation to their claims.
I am, therefore, satisfied that the person concerned was at all times fully informed of the issues involved, and of the outcome of the decision of the deciding officer and the subsequent test appeal. Unemployment benefit is accordingly not payable in this case while the claim remains disqualified under the trade dispute provisions of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981.
787.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if all disability benefit has been paid to a person (details supplied) in County Mayo.
It is presumed that the parliamentary question refers to an unemployment benefit claim as there is no record of a disability benefit claim in respect of the person concerned according to the Department's records.
The person concerned claimed unemployment benefit from 25 May 1981 to 28 April 1982 after which he resumed work and he was paid weekly at a reduced rate pending the completion of inquiries about the non-payment of contributions by his employer. These investigations were only recently completed and it has been established that he is entitled to payment on unemployment benefit at the maximum rate following the collection of outstanding contributions. Arrangements have been made to pay the adjusting arrears of unemployment benefit when the person concerned next calls to his local office.
According to the Department's records he has insufficient earnings to qualify for pay-related benefit as a supplement to flat-rate unemployment benefit during the period of his claim. However, inquiries to ascertain if he has additional earnings during the relevant April 1979 to April 1980 income tax year are still in train. When the necessary inquiries are finalised his entitlement to pay-related benefit will be determined.
788.
(Limerick East) asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason no invalidity payments have been made to a person (details supplied) in County Limerick for the past five weeks.
The person concerned was in receipt of disability benefit from 11 February 1980 to 24 April 1982. Payment ceased from that date as no medical evidence of incapacity was recorded as haveing been received in respect of him for three months. On inquiry it transpired that he had in fact been submitting medical certificates at monthly intervals but that he had been quoting an incorrect RSI number. He has now been notified of the correct number and has been requested to use this number on all correspondence with my Department in future.
The claim has now been re-admitted and arrears of disability benefit due for the period 26 April to 5 June 1982 were issued on 31 May 1982. Further weekly payments will issue on receipt of medical evidence of incapacity at monthly intervals.