Vol. 855 No. 1
78. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection the classifications of employment which have been prohibited from utilising the JobBridge scheme; the number of positions which have been removed by her Department from the JobBridge scheme; the kind of positions removed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40054/14]
This question is with regard to information recently publicised in the national media about certain positions being withdrawn from the JobBridge scheme.
JobBridge is a successful work experience scheme, the purpose of which is to break the vicious cycle whereby long-term unemployed people are unable to get work without experience but are unable to get experience without a job. All internships under JobBridge are, of course, voluntary. There is a limited number of occupations to which access to internships is restricted. These include placements in apprenticeship trades such as electricians and plumbing areas. In addition, sector-specific guidelines have been developed and applied for the use of internships in the child care, health and education sectors. These guidelines are published on the JobBridge website.
As the Deputy is aware, a number of cleaner and caretaker internships were recently advertised by some schools throughout the country. These internships did not satisfy the conditions of the JobBridge scheme and we have requested that they be withdrawn. The Department is working with the Department of Education and Skills to review the guidelines for the use of internships by schools to clarify what does, and does not, constitute appropriate use of JobBridge by schools. I expect this review to be completed shortly and a revised circular will be issued to the schools by the Department of Education and Skills.
Overall, participation in JobBridge has been very positive for the almost 34,000 persons who have participated to date.
The independent evaluation of the JobBridge scheme conducted by Indecon Economic Consultants found that 89% of interns stated that JobBridge had given them new skills while 96% of host organisations would recommend JobBridge to another employer.
In addition, the report also found that interns benefited from an increase in their self-confidence, the opportunity to gain quality work experience and the opportunity to establish a network of contacts.
We are all aware that schools have to resort to desperate measures in some circumstances because of the huge cutbacks in the education sector over the past four years. Does the Minister of State agree it is reprehensible that schools should exploit those young people in this way? Does he agree it was exploitation because that is how the Minister described it? She said that exploiting one set of people to do good work for another less privileged is at the least questionable. Has any action been taken against the people and the schools involved in this exploitation? What guarantee can the Minister of State give us that it will not recur?
I thank the Deputy. There were a limited number of advertisements for those positions. The Department has ensured they were taken down. A protocol is being developed between the Department and the Department of Education and Skills to review the guidelines to avoid similar incidents in future. A number of work activation schemes operate within the education sector, such as CE schemes and Tús. It is extremely successful and is beneficial for the schools involved and for the participants, who get valuable experience working in those schools. The answer is that the protocol identifying what is allowed under JobBridge within the educational sector is being developed and the Department of Education and Skills will circulate it very shortly
On the general question of JobBridge, I do not deny there have been some successes; I freely concede that. I acknowledge that some of those schemes operate to the benefit of schools. Nevertheless, there has been some disturbing evidence of abuse by employers of the JobBridge scheme. The scheme is constructed in such a way that the taxpayers are paying these people to work in the private sector. They also work in the public sector, but let us look at the private sector for the moment. A private employer can get the benefit of those people paid for by taxpayers money and yet some private employers have chosen to abuse that and waste taxpayers' money. This is semi-criminal behaviour. Why has the Government consistently refused to publish the names of those employers who have abused the scheme? Why does it continue to protect those fraudsters?
I thank the Deputy for his positive remarks because JobBridge has worked extremely well, with 61% of people going into full-time employment within five months of participating in a JobBridge scheme. It shows the real benefit of helping people who are long-term unemployed to get experience and then get into work. The Deputy wants it both ways. He wants to say it is a positive experience and then say that people exploit it.
It is positive - with exceptions.
There are very strong control measures. It has a very high level of inspection rate, to the highest of European standards. It also provides for people who are participating in JobBridge to send in complaints to the Department which are rigorously investigated.
The Deputy cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he thinks it is a very good scheme, which has helped people get real experience where they have been able to get long-term jobs, and then be critical at the same time. It is like sitting on the fence. The Deputy wants it both ways.
The Minister of State is suggesting that we ignore the abuse. He should publish the names of the people caught exploiting the scheme.
79. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if she has had any discussions with the Department of Education and Skills on the use of JobBridge in schools since 20 September 2014; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40053/14]
Similar to the previous question, in the wake of a public outcry against the use of the JobBridge scheme to fill essential posts in schools last September, a number of advertisements were removed from its website and the Minister for Education and Skills undertook to raise the matter with the Minister for Social Protection. What were the content and outworkings of those discussions?
The Minister of State has spoken of the overwhelming positive experiences reported by interns on this scheme. It would be helpful to recall that when JobBridge was introduced in 2011, many people were expressing frustration that jobseekers could not take up unpaid work experience opportunities either because they could not afford the expenses associated with going to work or, worse still, because they could lose their entitlement to their jobseeker payment. That was the situation I inherited.
In developing JobBridge, considerable care was taken to set conditions that would limit the ability of employers to exploit the scheme. There is a limit on the duration of internships - six months or nine months - and on the total number of internships that can be offered by an organisation. Permanent posts cannot be filled by successive use of internships and internships cannot be used to fill a position previously filled by a paid employee. The scheme is voluntary and all hosts are voluntary. I stress that all internships are also voluntary and subject to a standard agreement, which sets out the obligations of host organisations, including the provision of training and mentoring. Care was also taken not impose an elitist view of an internship as something that was only suitable as a means of accessing so-called professional careers by young graduates. Many people who are long-term unemployed value the opportunity to prove their ability via a work experience opportunity in occupations that are not the traditional preserve of internships.
I share the concerns recently expressed regarding the use of JobBridge by schools. I asked officials in the Department to remove some positions from the JobBridge website for this reason. Officials were also asked to undertake a review, together with their colleagues in the Department of Education and Skills, of the use of JobBridge by schools. I understand that this review is close to completion and that new guidelines will shortly issue to schools setting out clearly what is, and is not, acceptable use of the JobBridge scheme.
We have made similar agreements with a host of other sectors successfully.
I accept that when there was an outcry, the Department acted and addressed the issues relating to the website but a perusal of the website since then reveals that three advertisements have been placed for teachers, two for caretakers-janitors and 29 for special needs assistants, SNAs. This practice has, therefore, not been suspended, as the Minister has tried to present. There continues to be abuse in the filling of jobs, which should be filled by full-time or part-time employees, in particular, teachers who have achieved a qualification. Schools, despite the opposition of the teachers' unions are using JobBridge to fill vacant teaching positions, which is contrary to the Minister's opening statement that they should not use JobBridge to fill a position previously filled by a paid employee. The scheme should be used to fill different positions. Why are these positions still being advertised, despite the Department indicating to the public that this practice had been suspended?
As the Deputy probably heard during the budget announcement, next year 1,800 people will be recruited into schools, including teachers, resource teachers and SNAs.
In terms of Ireland's economic recovery, it is a real pleasure to be able to announce such widescale recruitment in 2015. That is very positive.
The reality - the Deputy does not appear to appreciate this - is that a person who became unemployed for, say, six months or more or a young graduate coming out of college at the height of the recession often found that employment was closed to them because no firms were recruiting. JobBridge was a response to the situation whereby people wanted to undertake voluntary work to obtain vital experience but under social welfare rules were barred from doing so.
In regard to schools, school boards are independent in terms of how they manage their affairs. I understand that a number of schools have taken on one or two interns who, in addition to the ongoing work of the school undertaken by teachers, have taken on additional work in IT, library and specific specialist areas. Such positions are popular. Many of the people who took up those positions have gone on to obtain further employment, which previously they could not break into because they had no experience. That is the essential point.
The Minister may not be aware that most teachers who qualify have experience. It is an abuse of those teachers who are qualified to expect them to participate in JobBridge. I will give an example. I have been contacted by a constituent who despite having an under-graduate degree and several years classroom experience, which she obtained abroad, took up an aid position under JobBridge. While initially she was thrown in at the deep end to work with very vulnerable children without having had an opportunity to shadow another SNA, she later became a general dogsbody. In her view, she gained nothing from the experience. I do not believe that is appropriate.
Is the Minister concerned that if the Government proceeds with the 1% cut in capitation grants to schools, this will give rise to an increased use of the JobBridge scheme to fill caretaker and janitor positions?
There is in place a monthly reporting format which allows hosts and interns to cross-check on their mutual experiences. I suggest that the Deputy's constituent - I would be disappointed if she does not do this - who appears to be highly qualified, contacts the Department of Social Protection and provides it with a run-down of her experience, including the name of the school concerned. Often people starting off in teaching here perhaps on return to this country find it hard to obtain teaching hours. I assume that was the problem for the Deputy's constituent. I am sorry the Deputy's constituent did not contact the Department during the course of the experience. To date, the Department has carried out more than 8,000 inspections of JobBridge, which is probably the highest rate of inspections by any public body of a scheme.
It must be remembered that a school is strictly limited in the number of JobBridge interns it can employ, as are all employments. The number of interns permitted is based strictly on the number of school staff.
80. Deputy John Halligan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection the steps she has taken to mitigate the shortcomings in the rent supplement section; her views that particularly in County Waterford the revised monthly rental limits are decidedly below the average rents being charged by landlords and that rents in the area are on the increase; her further views that more landlords are refusing to accept tenants who indicate that they will be making an application for rent supplement due to the massive delays in processing these applications; her views that this is resulting in more families finding it impossible to source adequate accommodation within the monthly rental limits and find themselves verging on homelessness as a result; if she will make a commitment to increase the staffing levels in the rent supplement section in Waterford to address the serious backlog which now exists; if she will review the process by which an applicant already in receipt of rent supplement wishes to change address and reapply for assistance, as it would reduce processing times if any supplementary application could be processed on the basis of a reassessment of the new property and not a full reassessment of the person where the applicant may confirm that their circumstances aside from address have not altered; if she will review both the monthly rental limits in the County Waterford area and also the process by which the applications are assessed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40164/14]
What steps has the Department of Social Protection taken to mitigate the shortcomings within the rent supplement scheme? Will the Minister acknowledge that the revised monthly rental limits, particularly in the Waterford area, are well below the average rents being charged by landlords and that the number of landlords refusing to accept tenants who indicate they will be making an application for rent supplement is increasingly resulting in more families finding it impossible to source adequate accommodation within the monthly rental limits?
There are currently 1,400 rent supplement recipients in Waterford, at an approximate cost of €4.2 million this year. Some 326 of those, or almost 25% of these claims, were awarded this year.
I want to assure the Deputy that officers administering rent supplement throughout the country have considerable experience in dealing with customers and will continue to make every effort to ensure that the accommodation needs of customers are met. In Waterford, for example, officials from the Department also meet weekly with the local authority and voluntary service providers under the aegis of the Homeless Action Team which is co-ordinated by Waterford City and County Council. Discretionary powers are available to staff to award a supplement for rental purposes in exceptional cases where it appears that the circumstances of the case so warrant and these powers are used as required.
Minimising the risk of homelessness as an objective has been largely achieved in the south east region with very low levels of rough sleeping recorded over the period 2010-13 and numbers residing long term in emergency hostels have been greatly reduced. Waterford is one of the initial locations for the roll-out of the housing assistance payment, HAP, and the officials are working with the local authority to achieve that. This includes referring all new applications for rent supplement for consideration of HAP entitlement in the first instance. This will lead to a more integrated response to the delivery of housing needs and an improvement in customer service and processing times.
We are determined to meet the scale of the social housing need and we have announced, as part of budget 2015, a very large capital investment of over €2.2 billion for social housing for the next three years. In 2015, over €800 million will be invested in a range of housing programmes, which represents the first major investment in housing since 2009. I want to also assure the Deputy that the situation in Waterford is kept under review by the staff in Waterford.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Provision of a prompt service is a major objective for the Department’s staff dealing with applications for all schemes, including rent supplement. When the necessary information required to process an application is provided to the Department, a rent supplement claim will be processed within a short timeframe, approximately five to ten days.
I am acutely aware of the difficulties people are experiencing in maintaining affordable rented accommodation, including those in receipt of rent supplement, in the current market. Raising rent limits may not be the solution to the problem as it is likely to add to further rental inflation. I plan to keep the matter under close review.
The Minister's answer is completely at odds with the facts as I know them to be in Waterford having spoken to many people, and people who deal with the rent allowance. The Minister will recall that she confirmed to me that there had been significant staff changes in the unit administering the supplementary claims in Waterford. The office had recently relocated - I believe the Minister visited it - from the Health Service Executive premises to a new Intreo centre. The Minister is on record as pledging that applicants would be processed within five to ten working days, therefore, can the Minister offer any explanation for the reason rent allowance applicants in Waterford are now waiting up to three months in some instances? Waterford city and east Waterford currently has approximately 1,280 rent supplement applications administered by the office. The average waiting time for an application to be assessed is between two and three months, which is contrary to what the Minister said in her reply and contrary to what she said some months ago when I put that question to her in Waterford when she opened this new centre. These facts are coming from the people in the Department of Social Protection and those trying to access rent allowance.
As the Deputy knows, a major newly refurbished centre was opened in Waterford which has proven enormously successful in providing a very high-quality social welfare service because all of the IT platforms have been improved. As the Deputy also knows, there is a general reception desk, without glass barriers, where people can ask for the information they want. People in Waterford are very complimentary about the new-style service.
In terms of the waiting period, the waiting period for rent supplement is five to ten days. If there are specific features of the particular cases the Deputy has identified, it would be helpful if he gave me details of those, but that is the particular standard to which we work. I am happy to say that in Waterford in particular there is very close co-operation among the staff in social welfare, organisations and agencies which take an interest in the problems of people who are homeless, and the local authority.
It will be one of the key areas where we will roll out the housing assistance payment which will be of further assistance.
Not a week goes by in my advice centre that I do not deal with someone looking for rent allowance. I am the only Deputy operating out of Waterford city so I know what I am speaking about. It is not five to ten days. I do not know where the Minister gets those facts and figures.
The stark reality being presented to many with whom I deal is a damp, dark bedsit with shared toilet facilities because this Government reduced rent allowance over recent years. It is impoverishing very vulnerable people who have no hope of getting a house on the local authority housing list for years and have no choice but to apply for rent allowance. Many of them have children and are coming out of vulnerable situations themselves. Landlords are dramatically increasing rent. The Minister reduced the amount for applicants which leaves all these vulnerable people with nowhere to go.
It is not the case that someone who applies for rent allowance will be five or six days without being housed, which means being put into rented accommodation. Many people in desperate situations are being victimised by landlords providing poor conditions because of the cuts in rent allowance. I contradict what the Minister says about the five day waiting list. I deal with social welfare officers in Waterford every day of the week.
Nationally, 73,000 individuals or families receive rent allowance. The Deputy knows how popular it is with families. In Waterford, 325, or almost 25%, of the claims for rent allowance were awarded this year. I do not accept that there is not a significant number of people in Waterford whose housing needs are being addressed. I am aware, and I understand what the Deputy is referring to, that over the period of the crisis from 2008-09 onwards, very many people have been affected because, since the early 2000s, local authorities, in a policy led by the previous Government, decided to move away from building traditional social housing and to emphasise instead the private market providing for what were meant to be short-term tenancies.
The first move is that in next year’s budget, for the first time in over a decade, there is to be a resumption of the building of social housing and I know that families, especially those in their 30s and 40s, want a long-term reliable tenancy. That is what I want them to get and that is what the budget is designed to do.
81. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection the responsibility her Department accepts in the circumstances where private investigators accessed social protection information in breach of data protection; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40055/14]
This question arises from recent legal proceedings in which private investigators were convicted of breach of the data protection legislation by using confidential information which they got from the Department of Social Protection.
I take it the Deputy is referring to the Data Protection Commissioner’s successful prosecution of a firm of private investigators, MCK Rentals Limited, which recently resulted in convictions against the firm and both of its directors. I congratulate the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner on this successful and important prosecution. The firm illegally obtained customers’ personal data from a staff member of the Department and it is my understanding that information relating to customer addresses solicited by the private investigations firm was passed on to credit unions. I am very concerned at the behaviour of credit unions in these cases.
I have been informed that the private investigators were extremely adept at duping officials in the Department. They displayed a high degree of professionalism and training in duping techniques. They already had customers' personal information, such as dates of birth and PPS numbers. Departmental staff members require such personal information to ascertain whether telephone inquiries are from genuine sources.
The Department and I regret the understandable concern caused to the Department's customers by the illegal activities of these private investigators. We fully assisted the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner. I stress that the Department treats data protection with complete and total seriousness. As Deputies are aware, the Department deals with a substantial number of legitimate data requests every working day. In 2013, it dealt with well over 1.8 million telephone calls involving queries across the range of schemes provided by the Department. That equates to almost 35,000 telephone calls per week. The particular people involved in this case seem to have been extraordinarily adept at pretending. They had access to the basic information that is always used when checking whether an inquirer is a legitimate inquirer. Obviously, they gained access through that. I was deeply disappointed to hear it is apparent that the clients on behalf of which they were doing this were credit unions. I understand from some media comment that not all of the credit unions may have been aware that they were giving, or were able to supply, some of this information.
I share the Tánaiste's concern about the conduct of those credit unions. I congratulate the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner on this successful prosecution. I was interested to hear the Tánaiste's reply. Essentially, credit unions that had access to PPS numbers rang the Department, pretended to be representing another State body and sought the addresses of people they were chasing for alleged bad debts. Does the Tánaiste agree that this perfectly illustrates the danger of making people's PPS numbers available to third parties like Irish Water? As soon as a PPS number is given to a third party, the potential exists for anybody and everybody ultimately to access it. People who have no business accessing PPS numbers should not be able to access them. What steps have been taken to avoid a recurrence of this in the future? Somebody who is equally adept at duping social welfare officials might make a telephone call in the morning claiming to be from the southern area health board and looking for information like this. What has been done to prevent that from happening?
When a public representative or some other third party rings the Department on behalf of somebody, staff in the Department have to follow a standard procedure to ascertain that the person in question has the authority to act in that manner. Given that 1.8 million phone calls are received each year, or 35,000 a week, it is clear that a significant proportion of the Department's public services is conducted over the telephone. Standard checks are requested. In this case, one staff member of the Department was duped by people who were able to supply the PPS numbers of individuals and perhaps other information relating to those individuals. That allowed them to be extremely convincing. The Deputy referred to Irish Water. Social welfare legislation specifies that PPS numbers can be used by certain specified bodies, such as Irish Water, only for the purposes of public service transactions. Irish Water cannot use PPS numbers for any other purposes. That is set down in law.
The Social Welfare Consolidation Act provides that it is an offence to use PPS numbers in a manner not provided for under that Act. A person convicted of same can receive a significant fine or a term of imprisonment.
I accept the Tánaiste's remarks about the legislation, but credit unions are prohibited by legislation from using PPS numbers in the way they were used in this case. Once PPS numbers are given out to a third party, there is the potential for other people to acquire them.
It would not be easy, but has anything been done as a result of this case? Private investigators posing as public officials rang the Department, gave people's PPS numbers, which they should not have had in the first place, and consequently were given the people's addresses, which they passed on to the credit union. Can any action be taken to ensure this does not recur?
There is a protocol, as well as regular information and training programmes, in the Department in respect of people's personal data not being utilised in any way that falls outside the law and the Department's regulations. In addition, the Data Protection Commissioner closely oversees the Department's work in that respect, as the commissioner's primary function is to protect people's data. I am glad to report that, in this case, the commissioner was zealous in doing so.
If the person making the call claims to be the subject of the data request, he or she is first asked for identifying details such as his or her PPS number, which the people in question had, date of birth, mother's maiden name and other personal information that would help to verify that the person making the inquiry is who he or she is claiming to be. Since the people in this case already seemed to have an amount of data about the individual, they were able to answer the standard queries. If there is any doubt, people are asked to telephone back or further inquiries are made about the caller's identity or authority to ring on behalf of the particular customer. For example, public representatives make contact with the Department. It must be established that they are public representatives and that they have people's permission to approach the Department on their behalf regarding queries.
82. Deputy John Halligan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection the way in which a social welfare inspector may refuse an application for jobseeker's allowance and make a negative decision where there is an active outstanding unfair dismissal claim being made by the applicant, particularly where the applicant has the full backing of his or her union; her views that the position in law is that all dismissals are unfair and it is for the employer to prove otherwise, therefore any application for social welfare assistance should be processed on that basis and any further review of the claim postponed pending the outcome of the unfair dismissal claim; if she will review this decision in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Waterford; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40166/14]
Why would the Department of Social Protection refuse an application for jobseeker's allowance and make a negative decision where there is an outstanding unfair dismissal case being taken by that applicant, particularly where the applicant has the full backing of his or her union? Does the Tánaiste agree that the position in law is that all dismissals are unfair unless the employers can prove otherwise?
Decisions on the awarding of social welfare payments such as jobseeker's benefit or allowance are made by the deciding officers appointed under the terms of the Social Welfare Acts. In making decisions, deciding officers are bound by the provisions of social welfare legislation. Each case is dealt with on its merits and in accordance with the facts of the case.
Social welfare legislation provides that a person shall be disqualified for receiving jobseeker's benefit for a period not exceeding nine weeks where he or she has lost his or her employment through his or her own misconduct. The person in this case made a claim for jobseeker's benefit, having lost her employment. The deciding officer disqualified her from receipt of payment for nine weeks. This decision was appealed to the social welfare appeals office where the appeal was not upheld.
I understand the Deputy recently has been in contact with the Department in connection with this case. I am advised by the social welfare appeals office that this case has been reopened for oral hearing and that the person concerned and the Deputy were advised of this on 13 October 2014. The person concerned will be notified of the arrangements for the oral hearing as soon as these have been finalised.
I thank the Tánaiste and acknowledge that I received the correspondence from her Department. I first wish to make clear that I have no problem that some people can be dismissed for gross misconduct. I am not making that argument. However, there are those who make mistakes in their lives, who are constructively dismissed or who leave employment because of bullying or psychological problems. As the legislation stands, all such people are disbarred from social welfare payments for ten weeks and some compassion should be shown in this regard. At present, we isolate someone who is a family member or an individual and who relies solely on a social welfare payment when he or she leaves his or her job. It is wrong that such a person is left for ten weeks without a payment. I ask that a ruling be made to ensure nobody is left isolated for a period of two months or ten weeks without payment of any sort from the State. That is wrong and has dire social consequences. I again make the point that there is no way under any circumstances whereby the social welfare payments of anyone who has been dismissed from his or her job and is going through a procedure of unfair dismissal should be stopped until a decision has been made.
I do not wish to go into the facts of the particular case, of which the Deputy is aware. As it is the subject of an oral appeal, there then will be an opportunity to discuss the case in greater detail. However, when a person makes an application, to some extent the decision reached by a deciding officer depends significantly on statements and remarks made by that person to support his or her application. In this particular case, the employee appears to have been employed in the employment for a significant time. Given the circumstances mentioned by the Deputy - I do not know whether the person perhaps has taken up some of the industrial relations mechanisms in respect of the dismissal - this obviously is not handled by the Department of Social Protection. There certainly are issues in this case on which I am not in a position to make a judgment. However, in the case of somebody who has lost his or her job and who considers this to be unfair - the suggestion is because of misconduct - it normally would be a matter of going through the industrial relations machinery. However, in the case of the Department of Social Protection, the long-standing rule is the deciding officer makes a decision based on the facts of the case presented by the person who is applying. An oral hearing perhaps will allow any other material matters that may not have been presented at the time to be considered.
Are people not being declared guilty until proven innocent? The position here is that many people leave their jobs or go through constructive dismissal or, as I stated earlier, are sacked justifiably. However, if they decide to take a case of unfair dismissal against the employer and so on, I do not believe one has a right to judge them until this case is heard by the legislative body, which is the Labour Court or a commissioner or whatever. Put simplistically, I make the point that until a decision is made by that body, which Members have put in place as legislators in this House, people should not be prohibited from having some subsistence during that period before the hearing is held. This is a simple, reasonable request that shows compassion to a small group of people who go through constructive dismissal, who may have been bullied out of their jobs, who may be obliged to leave or who may have psychological problems.
They may consider that they have to proceed with the matter further, through their union or otherwise, to the Labour Court. They should be given that additional time and should not be declared guilty until a final decision is made.
In this particular case the information that was supplied and the information supplied by the employer was in regard to a misconduct episode-----
Yes.
-----which gave rise to a dismissal. The deciding officer had the facts as presented by the individual and also supplied by the employer when the case was examined, which confirmed what the applicant had represented when they came in as being part of the particular circumstances of the case. They have now decided to have an oral appeal and that will afford a greater opportunity to check out the facts.
As the Deputy will know, large numbers of people are granted jobseeker's benefit or jobseeker's allowance. This particular case is complicated by the circumstances which gave rise to the employee's dismissal, notwithstanding that they had been with the employer for 11 years.
