You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Unemployment Cases >> Jobseekers Allowance - Formerly Unemployment Assistance 

Jobseekers Allowance  -  Case 1  

Question At Issue:

Genuinely Seek Work

Background:

The appellant’s claim to Unemployment Assistance was disallowed. A Deciding Officer determined that he was not genuinely seeking work, in line with the qualifying conditions for receipt of payment under the scheme. He is engaged in an environmental protection project, working in a voluntary capacity.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant was accompanied by a public representative. The Deciding Officer and Social Welfare Inspector attended at the request of the Appeals Officer. Two assessors (one from the employer’s panel and one from the employee’s panel) had also been invited to attend but were absent on the day of the hearing. The Appeals Officer outlined the role fulfilled by the assessors, and asked the appellant whether he was willing to proceed in their absence. The appellant agreed to proceed but indicated his dissatisfaction at their failure to attend.

The Deciding Officer outlined the basis for her decision. She indicated that she had advised the appellant that his claim was subject to review but that he had not completed the questionnaire she had given him, nor supplied any documentary evidence to indicate that he was genuinely seeking work. In consequence, she had disallowed his claim in line with the provisions of the governing legislation.

The appellant indicated that he had been in receipt of social welfare payments for ten years prior to the date of his disallowance. He outlined the nature of his involvement with the environmental protection project, the land assigned to it by the county council, and the funding sought from the government to support the work undertaken. He stated that he had applied to the Business Development Centre (FÁS) and the Social Economy Programme (FÁS), and was awaiting replies. He indicated that he had applied to participate in a community employment scheme but was deemed ineligible because of his commitment to the project.

The public representative outlined the nature of the work undertaken by the appellant, and the need for his continued involvement in order to ensure the viability of the project. He argued that in the absence of a basic guaranteed income, there is a need for some type of payment for
volunteer workers. He indicated that this issue was being discussed at Green Paper level. He argued that the appellant satisfied the conditions for receipt of Unemployment Assistance, and that he and others engaged in the project had made every effort to create employment. He stated that the outcome of the appeal in this case would have repercussions for the project, in the event that those involved were required to look for work elsewhere.

The Appeals Officer outlined the qualifying conditions for receipt of Unemployment Assistance, and asked the appellant about his efforts to find work outside of the project. The appellant stated that his work in the project was time-consuming, and that he worked very hard. He indicated that he resents being regarded as unemployed as he considers himself to be actively employed. He reported that he was in receipt of Supplementary Welfare Allowance for himself and his family but was concerned that this payment might be terminated in the event that he lost his appeal. He expressed concern also that in the event that he were to take up regular employment, the project would be jeopardised and animal lives would be put at risk.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer noted the Deciding Officer’s submission that the appellant had produced no evidence to indicate that he had been seeking work outside the environmental protection project, and that the appellant had not presented such evidence at the oral hearing. He noted also that the appellant had acknowledged that he had been in receipt of Unemployment Assistance for the last ten years, and that he had not looked for work outside the project. He considered the appellant to be dedicated and committed to his work for the project but concluded that he had not fulfilled the statutory requirement of genuinely seeking work, as defined in social welfare legislation. Accordingly, he determined that the appeal must fail.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed.

End of Document