(Waterford) asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is prepared to amend section 35 (1) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, which is currently being invoked to deprive the workers of Clover Meats Ltd. in County Waterford of their just entitlements; and, if so, if he is further prepared to make this amendment legislation retrospective to cover the period in which the workers were denied payment.

23.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will amend section 35 (1) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, to allow for the payment of unemployment and pay-related benefits to workers such as those in Clover Meats, Waterford, where there was a failure to agree on terms and conditions of employment, but where no industrial action was involved; and if he will make provision for the payment of benefit retrospectively in this particular case and in the meantime if he will exercise his powers under section 35 (4) of the said Act to make regulations so that the anomalies which at present prevent the workers in question from receiving benefit, will be removed.

24.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare when amending legislation will be introduced to remove the anomaly in the law which originally prevented the workers in Clover Meats Ltd, Dungarvan, County Waterford, from receiving unemployment benefit; and if he will make a statement in the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 22, 23 and 24 together. The question of amending section 35 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, is under consideration by my Department and with this in mind my predecessor had written to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers requesting them to submit any specific suggestions they might have for amending the legislation. Since assuming office on 9 March I have also written to the organisations concerned and conveyed to them my interest in the matter. I have invited their views and as soon as I have received replies from both organisations I will have all aspects of the matter considered.

With regard to the suggestion by Deputy Deasy that section 35 (4) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act might be used, I should explain that the purpose of that subsection is to impose, where considered appropriate, conditions additional to the basic conditions contained in section 35. It does not give power to override the basic provisions set down in the section and could not be used for the purpose suggested by the Deputy.

(Waterford): Is the Minister aware that the circumstances which gave rise to the tabling of this question in my name are that 300 Clover Meats workers, some with upwards of 30 years service with the company, because they failed to agree to a rationalisation programme by the company were thereby deprived of their social welfare entitlements? Would the Minister agree that this section is being used as a weapon by employers to force their workers into subjection?

I would like to make it quite clear that the Act as it stands has been correctly interpreted by the deciding officer, the appeals officer and the courts. The question that arises now is whether any amendment to that section should be considered for the future. Such examinations have gone on in the past. I would also like to make it clear that this Section 35 was included in the Consolidation Bill of the foundation Act. Of course the Consolidation Act did not enact any new legislation but only consolidated existing legislation and the Attorney General had to certify that there was no change in the legislation as it existed and no change in any of the amendments made by the standing committee. We are dealing with regulations which had existed under the legislation. The decision was made honestly and objectively by the deciding officer, the appeals officer and the courts. It was an honest decision in relation to the Act. The question of whether or not the Deputy is happy with the Act as it stands is a separate one which is being discussed now and in relation to which we have invited contributions from the organisations which are directly concerned, including the ICTU and the FUE, and when these are available we will consider what further action might be taken.

Is the Minister aware that the section cost Fianna Fáil overall control of the Dáil on this occasion? More important, was there a mistake made in drafting the relevant section of this Act? Was it intended that a disagreement over the terms and conditions of employment be interpreted as a trade dispute or was that a mistake? Previously it was not designated as a trade dispute but under this new section of the 1980 Act it has been interpreted as such. Could the Minister answer that?

There was no amendment made in 1980. There was no change in the Consolidation Act. It was in 1967 that a change was made in the Act and that was following consultations with the ICTU when subsections 35 (1) (a) and (b) were added to the section which enabled persons not directly involved in a dispute to be excluded from the disqualification and to become eligible for benefit. They were all excluded before that. Therefore, that was an improvement on what happened previously and that was carried forward into the Consolidation Act. So the question that arises now is whether there are other categories of persons who should be excluded in particular circumstances.

Why then is it only in this dispute that the people were disqualified from social welfare benefit? Surely since 1967 there should have been numerous such examples. But this was the first time that this had occurred. It must have been something included in the 1980 Act, something new.

It was a relief that was given in the 1967 Act and it was prior to that that all the parties, whether they were directly involved in a dispute or not, were excluded. What happened in 1967 was that it was considered that it was unfair that people who were not direct parties to a dispute should be denied unemployment benefit. Therefore, the sections in question were included for that purpose. These were really escape clauses which allowed social welfare benefits to be paid to people who were not directly involved in a dispute. To go further into it one would have to refer to particular sections and to the wording of sections.

I believe that the interpretation of the application for unemployment benefit by the workers of Clover Meats concerned was wrong. Would the Minister consider amending the Act to ensure that where both the trade unions involved and the employers involved agree that there is no dispute, whether it be a trade dispute for the purposes of the Trade Disputes Act or a dispute, under the Social Welfare Act, the workers involved will be entitled to unemployment benefit and other social welfare benefits?

I appreciate the point the Deputy is making, but the Deputy will appreciate that we could have constant payments of social welfare benefits. It is not a question of whether employers and unions agree that there is not a dispute; it is a question of whether or not they are in dispute and of who is in dispute with whom under the law. That is an amendment that could be proposed in relation to the legislation, but the Deputy will recognise that there would be implications flowing from that which would have to be considered on a much wider basis. The question is one of whether a dispute exists under the law as it stands at present. Section 35 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, referred to in the question, was simply a re-enactment of the trade dispute provisions contained in section 17 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, as amended by section 8 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1967. It provides that a person who has lost his employment by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at his place of employment is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit for as long as the stoppage continues except where he has taken up other regular employment from which he subsequently becomes unemployed.

But it was not a trade dispute.

The deciding officer is statutorily authorised to decide whether there is a dispute or not. The appeals officer is the next level at which our legislation is implemented and the third level is the courts, and all three decided that in this case there was a dispute and that meant that in relation to the Act itself the unemployment benefit could not be paid except in following the Act.