§ 57. Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a firm in Glasgow recently dismissed a number of pattern makers from their employment; that insurance benefit was refused to the men owing to the firm informing local exchange officials that the 1300 dismissal was due to the action of the pattern makers' association in placing a ban on overtime; that the secretary of the Employers' Federation, of which the firm is a member, informed the said association that the reason for dismissal was clue to the work being completed in the usual way, and the firm has since amended the original notice and certain men have received benefit, but two have not yet been paid; and what action is proposed to be taken to secure payment and also compensate the men for the delay in being paid?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDDoubt arose as to the eligibility of these pattern makers for benefit, owing to the wording of the statement made by the employers as to the reason for discharge. Benefit was not allowed, but the cases were referred to the chief insurance officer, who, on the full information before him, allowed the claims. The men's association, through which they had claimed were informed of the allowance and benefit should by now, have been paid by the association.
§ Mr. BUCHANANIn view of the fact that this firm made a statement which was wrong about the men and that the men have been denied payment of benefit, for five weeks in one case, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that he will take any steps to see that the men are compensated for that terrible delay of five weeks?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI will look into the matter.