§ Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade why T. Smith, of Tipton, who signed the unemployment register from 26th May onwards until he obtained work in the early part of July, has not received unemployment pay; whether it was necessary for him to attend the Court of Referees, Upper 2274W Police Court, Walsall, to which he was summoned on 17th July, to make good his claim, seeing that he would have lost half a day's work by so doing, and whether payment will now be made to him?
Mr. ROBERTSONFrom inquiries which I have made in this case, it appears that the workman referred to made a claim to benefit on the 26th May, which was disallowed on the 30th May, under Section 87 (1), on the ground that he had lost his employment through a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute. It appears, further, that the workman did not sign the register up to the early part of 'July, as stated in the question, but only till the 7th June, after which he obtained work in an insured trade. He did not lodge his appeal to the Court of Referees until the 8th July, and this was dismissed by the Court on the 17th. The workman was not summoned by the Court to attend, as no evidence was required from him.
§ Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will inquire into the cases of delay at Wednesbury Labour Exchange and the reason why J. E. Holland, of New Street, Wednesbury, who signed the unemployment register continuously for five weeks, and whose claim was admitted by the. Court of Referees, has not yet received any unemployment pay, and into the cases of W. E. Smith and S. Miles, also of Wednesbury, who have signed for five weeks and have not yet received unemployment pay or been asked to attend the Court of Referees?
Mr. ROBERTSONI am unable to trace any claim from a workman of the name of J. E. Holland, of New Street, Wednesbury. I am, however, informed that a workman named E. W. Holland, of 5, Perry Street, Wednesbury, made a claim on the 7th June, which was disallowed on the 13th June, under Section 87 (1), on the ground that he had lost his employment through a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute. An appeal was lodged on the 21st June to the Court of Referees, who, on the 10th July, recommended that benefit be allowed. There was some doubt as to the workman's age, and in consequence as to the benefit payable. Interim benefit was authorised on the 1st. August, and has been paid. With regard to the workman W. E. Smith, this workman made a claim to benefit on the 9th June, which was disallowed, under Section 87 (1), on the same 2275W ground as in the case of E. W. Holland. The workman's papers were unfortunately mislaid, and some delay ensued. An appeal to the Courts of Referees was, however, lodged by him on the 20th July, and the insurance officer, on the fresh facts then submitted, revised his previous decision. The workman was paid all the benefit to which he was entitled, amounting to £1 8s., on the 1st August. As regards the workman S. Miles, this workman made a direct claim to benefit on the 9th July, but did not sign the unemployed register, as required. He appears to have made this claim under a misapprehension, having intended to claim through his association. The first intimation of the workman's mistake was received by the Labour Exchange on the 22nd July, and on the 24th July the manager received instructions to allow the workman to claim through his association. The manager, however, was not able to get in touch with the workman till the 8th August, when an association claim was duly made, and this claim will immediately be dealt with.