§ Mr. J. DAVISONasked the Minister of Labour whether a number of members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union in Smethwick, although discharged prior 2221W to the commencement of the engineering lock-out, have been refused unemployment benefit; the reason for refusing benefits for which workmen have paid; and whether any action will be taken to restore to these men their legitimate rights?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI am not aware that benefit has been stopped, on account of the dispute, in the case of men discharged before it commenced. My hon. Friend may have in mind cases of men who were on short time but not discharged, and in that event I would refer him to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. H. Young) on 3rd May, of which I am sending him a copy.
Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that 75 girls were dismissed from Messrs. Davis and Timmins on 14th March, 1922; that these girls have been refused unemployment benefit by the local unemployment exchange; that the reason given for this refusal is that the foreman who had charge of their work was withdrawn by the Amalgamated Engineers' Union, and that the girls lost their employment owing to a trade dispute; and whether, in view of the hardship to these girls, that 75 of them should lose employment and then be refused benefits for which they have been paying because of the withdrawal of one man owing to a dispute in which they have no voice, what steps he proposes to take to remedy this grievance?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe Insurance Officer has decided in this case that the girls are disqualified for benefit under Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, on the ground as specified in that Section, that they had lost their employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at the factory at which they were employed. His decision has been upheld on appeal by the Court of Referees, and I have no power to modify it.