§ Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there is a dispute between the workmen of the firm at Boulton and Pauls, Norwich; that there is a large number of workpeople who are not involved in the dispute and who are not entitled to any trade union benefit; if he can state any reasons why 904W the men are not entitled to unemployment pay; if he is aware that some of the fellow workers who are non-unionists are receiving unemployment benefit, and that their claim has never been disputed; and if he will take action in the matter?
§ Mr. BETTERTONI understand that benefit was disallowed by the insurance officer in all cases, and that on appeal the Court of Referees upheld the disallowance except where the men were not members of the union to which the men involved in the dispute belonged. The insurance officer has appealed to the Umpire in regard to the allowance of benefit, and it is open to the union to appeal in the cases of disallowance. My right hon. Friend has no power to intervene.
§ Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mrs. E. L. Piper, of 181, Henniker Road, E.15, No. 29,128, Serial No. 16,482, who was for six years employed by a brush firm, was stood off on 29th January for slackness, signed on the register at the Stratford Exchange on 30th January, and was refused benefit on the ground that she was not genuinely seeking work; and, as she has been a worker for so many years, will he cause investigation to be made?
§ Mr. BETTERTONMrs. Piper was married on 20th December last and lost her employment on 29th January. In these circumstances, and also because she could produce little evidence of having searched for fresh work, her claim was disallowed by the chief insurance officer and the disallowance was confirmed by the court of referees. Further evidence was subsequently produced on her behalf, as a result of which the court reheard the case and allowed benefit.