You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Unemployment >> Jobseekers Benefit - Formerly Unemployment Benefit
Question At Issue:
Availability for work.
Background:
The appellant’s claim to Unemployment Benefit was disallowed for an eight-month period on grounds that she attended a part-time European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL) course. The Deciding Officer determined that she was not available for work because she was attending the course. The decision was made retrospectively so that the appellant was deemed not to have been entitled to payment she had already received. An overpayment of some €5,500 was assessed.
Consideration of the Appeals Officer:
The Appeals Officer determined the appeal on a summary basis, that is, without an oral hearing. He noted that the Deciding Officer had referred in his decision to the appellant attending a course of study on four mornings each week, in contrast to the appellant’s assertion that she was required to attend for only three hours each week. He noted that a Social Welfare Inspector had interviewed the course tutor in order to clarify the appellant’s hours of attendance. While no record was kept, the tutor recalled that the appellant put in three to four hours per week on the course. A letter from the school principal indicated that the course was held on two days each week and for a total of two and a half hours per week. The Appeals Officer noted that there was nothing on the file to indicate that any attempt had been made to ascertain if the course was also held in the evenings, as the appellant argued was the case.
The Appeals Officer accepted the appellant’s assertion that by doing the course she was in fact enhancing her employment prospects. He concluded that attendance at an ECDL course for a few hours a week, whether in the morning or the evening, would not preclude anyone from being available for employment and he referred to the fact that many people in full-time employment complete such training. He noted that the appellant’s contention that she continued to apply for jobs and that she did interviews during the period in question was not challenged by the Deciding Officer. He concluded that the appellant had been available for work and that her efforts to enhance her employment prospects should have been commended, rather than penalised by the assessment of a substantial overpayment.
Outcome:
Appeal allowed.
End of Document
Page Updated 07/09/2005
