HC Deb 22 March 1922 vol 152 cc439-41
18. Mr. MILLS

asked the Minister of Labour whether labourers in foundries who have lost their employment by reason of the engineering lock-out are not to receive unemployment benefit; if so, whether he is aware that, during the moulders' dispute, these labourers were refused benefit, but engineers who lost their employment in consequence of the moulders' dispute were paid benefit; and whether he will explain the reason why


I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the particulars which the hon. Member desires.

The following is the statement issued:

engineers should have received the benefit in the one case and the labourers in foundries refused the benefit in the ether?


The rules in this respect are laid down by Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. Broadly speaking, the following are disqualified for benefit:

  • All men actually locked out, and
  • All those working in the same Establishment (whether skilled or unskilled) who become unemployed on account of the lock-out.
In the case of a foundry forming part of an engineering works, but carried on in a separate department from the engineering shop, the men employed in the foundry would not ordinarily be disqualified for benefit on account of a lock-out confined to the engineering shop. If any doubt arises as to the application of Section 8 (1) in any case, an appeal may be lodged to the Court of Referees, and, if necessary, to the Umpire, whose decision is final and conclusive.


Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that very many people who are being locked out are being given their unemployment cards, which is virtually an act of dismissal? How will he view that with regard to claims for unemployment benefit?


That fact, of which I have no knowledge, would not affect the claim at all. It all depends on Section 8, Sub-section (1). The question can be raised, of course.