§ Dr. FORGANasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that Mr. William Paton, Inchinnan, Renfrewshire, has been deprived for seven weeks of unemployment insurance benefit, of 24s. a week, on the grounds that he had accepted spare-time employment at a weekly remuneration of 14s. 8d. as village lamp- 630W lighter under His Majesty's Office of Works; that the manager of the local Employment Exchange office had assured him before he accepted the job that such spare-time work would not deprive him of benefit; and that the court of referees at Paisley had upheld the disallowance and has refused the applicant leave to appeal; and what action she now proposes to take in the matter?
§ Miss BONDFIELDUnemployment benefit was disallowed in the case on the ground that the claimant was not unemployed as the subsidiary occupation could not be performed by him in addition to and outside the hours of his normal occupation. and I have no power to intervene in the matter. The statement in the second part of the question is not in accordance with my information. I understand that the claimant was informed that the decision was a matter for the statutory authorities.
§ Brigadier. General MAKINSasked the Minister of Labour the nature of any decisions given by the statutory authorities in the case of unemployed union workers who have refused to take up non-union work of a precisely similar character to that on which they are usually engaged; how many such cases have been decided in favour of the men; and in how many the benefit has been withheld on the ground that the employés are not genuinely seeking work?
§ Miss BONDFIELDIt has been held by the Umpire, whose decisions are final, that employment which is otherwise suitable is not rendered unsuitable merely because it is employment with a firm employing non-union workmen. The employment would, however, be unsuitable if it was one of the conditions that the worker should relinquish trade union membership. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, no statistics are available.
Lady MOSLEYasked the Minister of Labour whether her attention has been drawn to the fact that insurance officers are refusing unemployment benefit to persons who have been dismissed from their employment because they refuse to work overtime at a period when so many people are unemployed; and whether she proposes to issue instructions prohibiting refusal of benefit on this ground?
631W
§ Miss BONDFIELDMy attention has not been called to any such cases. The question whether a worker who is discharged for refusing to work overtime is entitled to receive unemployment benefit has to be determined in accordance with Section 8 of the Act of 1920, as interpreted by the decisions of the Umpire. Important considerations are whether there was real need for the services of the workman and whether liability to work overtime was part of the implied contract of service; but the decision must depend largely on the facts of the individual case. With regard to the last part of the question, I would remind my Noble Friend that I have no authority to issue instructions to insurance officers.