§ 35. Mr. BRIDGEMAN (for Mr. Worthington-Evans)asked the President of the Board of Trade why some twenty men on 19th June, from the fitting shops, smiths' shops, and die makers of James Russell and Sons, Limited, and some eighty men, on 23rd June, from the wheel shop, Old Park Smithy, and Old Park Foundry, of the Patent Shaft and Axle-tree Company, Limited, were allowed unemployment benefit when other but exactly similar cases on 26th June and 3rd July were rejected, one man who was rejected on the latter date doing exactly similar work to that of five men whose claims were allowed on 19th June, all six men being employed in the same department?
Mr. ROBERTSONI have made inquiries into this matter and am informed that the facts are not quite correctly stated in the question. The only case in which opposite decisions have been given by a Court of Referees as regards the same class of men in the same factory are those of certain men employed by Messrs. James Russell and Sons, Limited. On the 19th June the Court of Referees for the district recommended that benefit should be allowed in regard to certain employés of this firm. The insurance officer did not accept this recommendation, but referred it further to the Umpire, interim benefit being paid in accordance with Section 91 (1) (e) of the National Insurance Act and the Regulations thereunder. On the 3rd July the Court of Referees had to consider the case of other employés of the same firm, and in the light of further information as to the circumstances under which work at the factory was stopped, recommended that benefit should not be allowed, on the ground that the workmen were disqualified under Section 87 (1) of the Act. In the ordinary course the earlier decision of the Court to grant benefit in the other cases would as a consequence have been brought before the Court for their recon 1690 sideration in the light of fresh facts laid before them. This was, however, unnecessary, as on the same day the Umpire had reversed the previous decision of the Court and had decided that benefit should not be allowed in any of these cases. The payment of interim benefit was thereupon stopped. I understand that the other cases referred to by the Hon. Member are in different factories, and that the circumstances are in no case the same. In all cases the payment or withholding of benefit has been made in accordance with the decision of a Court of Referees or the Umpire. While I give the above explanation, I must remind the hon. Member that, the Board of Trade have no power to control or influence the decisions of those independent authorities, except in so far as they can promote uniformity of decisions by appeals to the Umpire.
§ 36. Mr. BRIDGEMAN (for Mr. Worthington-Evans)asked the President of the Board of Trade why employment, benefit allowed on 23rd June to men employed in the wheel shop, Old Park Smithy, and Old Park Foundry, of the Patent Shaft and Axletree Company, Limited, has not been paid to all the men, some having been in receipt of benefit for two weeks and others not having received any payment; and why a number of men were directed to attend daily and sign the unemployment register for five and six weeks before the Court decided that their unemployment was due to a strike, and that they were not entitled to any unemployment benefit?
Mr. ROBERTSONI am informed that in all the cases referred to the consideration of the claim by the Court of Referees took place within a few days after the lodging of the appeal. In some cases the men did not lodge their appeals till three or four weeks after the insurance officer's decision to disallow benefit was communicated to them. The men mentioned in the question, with one exception, have been paid the full amount of benefit to which they are entitled. In that case it appeared, after the finding of the Court of Referees, that the particular workman concerned was disqualified for benefit on another ground. This case is still the subject of investigation, but arrangements have now been made to pay interim benefit to the workman in accordance with the recommendation of the Court.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANThe hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question: I did not catch any answer to it?
Mr. ROBERTSON"Why a number of men were directed to attend daily and sign the unemployment register for five and six weeks before the Court decided that their unemployment was due to a strike, and that they were not entitled to any unemployment benefit." That does state precisely the difficulty which I have mentioned, that the cases are not on all fours with those previously discussed; but I am afraid I cannot go into details now.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANWould it not have been possible to show a little more consideration for these men than to expect them to come day after day for five or six weeks and sign the unemployment register; surely, it, was unnecessary to put them-to that inconvenience?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANIs it to be considered the ordinary thing that questions of this kind will not be considered within six weeks?
Mr. ROBERTSONNo, the question, I said, was not delayed. The men did not lodge their appeals till three or four weeks after the insurance officer's decision to disallow the benefit was communicated to them. It is the rule for unemployed men daily to sign the unemployment register.
44. Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he is aware that workmen in London who are insured against unemployment under Part II. of the National insurance Act, and who register at the Labour Exchanges as unemployed, are being compelled to accept employment at places from 150 to 250 miles distant from their homes; that if they refuse to go their unemployment benefit is stopped; that this is a hardship upon men with families and a prospect of getting employment in London; that no period of employment is guaranteed them at the places they arc requested to go to; and that there are workmen in the same trade registering as unemployed at Labour Exchanges in towns scores of miles nearer the places where the workmen are required than London; and whether, in view of these facts, he will take steps to prevent workmen being compelled to accept employment under the circumstances mentioned or to forfeit their unemployment benefit?
Mr. ROBERTSONNo such cases as those referred to by my hon. Friend have been brought to my notice. As I have frequently stated, the decision as to what employment a workman is entitled to, refuse as unsuitable, without forfeiting his claim to benefit, rests not with the Board of Trade, but ultimately with a Court of Referees or the Umpire, and ample machinery is provided whereby any workman whose benefit is refused or stopped can obtain a decision. In the case of a direct claim to benefit, the work man can appeal from the decision of the insurance officer to a Court of Referees, and the local officers of the Board are instructed to bring this right of appeal to the workman's notice in every case in which benefit is refused or stopped. In the case of a claim through an association, under Section 105 of the Act, any disputed claim is the subject of discussion between the Board of Trade and the association, and failing settlement is referred to the Umpire. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the memorandum setting out this procedure.
Mr. TYSON WILSONDoes the right hon. Gentleman think these men ought to be compelled to accept employment 300 or 400 miles away?
Mr. ROBERTSONAs I said, there has been no case brought before the Department of such a distance as that my hon. Friend cites. If there is any such case it will be looked into, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the Act provides machinery of independent Courts, and it is not for us to overrule them.