§ 28. Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware 908 that the employers on the Clyde are dismissing large numbers of men and marking their cards dismissed because of the joiners' strike; that, in a large number of cases, the men's work does not depend upon the employment of joiners; that the Labour Exchanges are refusing those men the unemployed benefits they have paid for; whether such refusal constitutes a breach of Section 8 (1), second paragraph, of the Unemployment Insurance Act, namely, where separate branches of work, which are commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises, are in any case carried on in separate departments on the same premises, each of those departments shall, for the purpose of this provision, be deemed a separate factory or workshop or separate premises, as the case may be; and whether he will issue instructions to the Labour Exchanges for the payment of unemployment benefits to the workers now being refused, but who come within the provisions of the foregoing paragraph?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI have made inquiry and am informed that the men's cards are not being marked as stated in the question. In the majority of the cases in question, if not in all, the men appear to be disqualified for unemployment benefit under the provisions of Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I have no power to remove this disqualification. The final decision as to whether the disqualification applies, rests with the umpire appointed under Section 12 of the Act, who has in general upheld the disallowance of benefit in these cases. An appeal to the umpire relating to French polishers is now pending.
§ Mr. MACLEANIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in quite a large number of cases in the shipyards up and down the country men are being dismissed, although this has nothing to do with the fact that men are on strike, and that their cards are marked, "dismissed owing to joiners' dispute?" If I furnish him with some of the cards will he consider the matter in the manner I have suggested?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIf my hon. Friend will give me cards so marked I shall be glad to look at them. The question of 909 disqualification is determined by Section 8 (1) of the Act. It is not a matter which is within my control.
§ Mr. TAYLORIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some of the Clyde shipyards the men are being dismissed for want of work and that their cards are marked in different ways? Some are marked, "Dismissed for want of work owing to joiners' strike," and others "Dismissed for want of work." There is inequality in the treatment of these men. When my right hon. Friend is amending the Unemployment Insurance Act will he consider some relaxation of Section 8?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAOver that I have no jurisdiction.
§ Sir B. FALLEWhat will happen to those men who are not allowed to work because of the joiners' strike?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI do not think that that comes within the ambit of what we are discussing.
§ Mr. WATERSONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are individuals who have paid their contributions for unemployment insurance and cannot get the benefits?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIf the hon. Member will give me instances I will deal with them.
§ Mr. HAYDAYIs it competent for an employer to mark the cards as has been described?
§ Dr. MACNAMARASpeaking off-hand and subject to correction, I should say no. That is why I want cases.