Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that J. Humphreys, 87, Govan Road, Govan, Joseph Johnston, 23, McLellan Street, and William McCaig, 71, Smith Street, were dismissed from their employment on 1st April owing to slackness of trade, and have been signing at the Employment Exchange since 4th April; whether none of these men have yet received any money and that no reason has been assigned for the non-payment; and whether he will take action to have the unemployment benefit paid to these men, together with arrears, from the date of signing?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI am making inquiries in these cases and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.
Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour whether the labour appeal boards are refusing claims made by unemployed people on the grounds that these workers are not looking for work; and whether, seeing that the onus of proof lies with the exchanges, and that this proof consists of the refusal of the applicants to accept an employment exchange offer of suitable employment, and in view of the large number of cases which have been refused employment benefit by these boards without such proof having been submitted by the exchanges, he will have instructions issued that unemployment 1384W benefit shall be paid in such cases where such proof has not been submitted?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIt is a statutory condition for the receipt of benefit under Section 3 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, that the applicant shall prove that he is genuinely seeking whole-time employment, and is unable to obtain it; the Section clearly lays the onus of proof upon the applicant. This is a general condition and is not necessarily connected with a specific refusal of an offer of suitable employment—which is an additional ground for disqualification. If my hon. Friend has any case or cases in which he thinks injustice has been done I will make inquiry concerning them.
§ Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mr. Frear, 16, Mercer Street, Newton-le-Willows, was advised by his panel doctor to give up his then employment and seek lighter work, but before giving up work he secured another job; that after serving his notice and presenting himself to his intended new employer he was prevented from starting work owing to the coal dispute, with the result that he signed on at the Employment Exchange; whether benefit was refused from the date of his application until the 25th May; and, if so, on what grounds was the earlier period not regarded as unemployment?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI am informed that the officers of the Ministry had no knowledge of the advice given by the panel doctor in the case of Mr. Frear. This applicant first claimed benefit on the 8th March, and, as it appeared that he left his employment of his own accord, the insurance officer disallowed his claim for six weeks. Mr. Frear did not take advantage of his right to appeal to a Court of Referees. He made a fresh claim on the 23rd May, on which benefit is now being paid. As he did not renew his claim between the expiry of the period of disqualification and the 23rd May, no period of unemployment prior to the 23rd May can be taken into account for benefit.
§ Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that men following the occupation of bleachers and dyers have been working short time in the Lancashire district of Newton-le-Willows since last December; that owing to the cotton trade dispute some of these men have been and are now unemployed, and 1385W that their unemployment benefit has been stopped or refused as a result of this dispute; that these men suffered a wages reduction last month, being in no way connected with the textile workers; and whether, in these circumstances, he will explain why unemployment benefit is not paid?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAInquiries are being made into the matter, and I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.