§ 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
§ Sir A. MOND
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?
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
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:
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.
- 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.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
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.