You are here: Home >> Case Studies >>Unemployment>> Jobseekers Benefit - Formerly Unemployment Benefit
Question At Issue:
whether the appellant sustained a substantial loss of employment for purposes of her claim to Jobseeker’s Benefit.
Background:
The appellant had been in
employment from age 17 years and had a social
insurance record of 2,366 weeks of insurable
employment. Due to a downturn in business, her
working week was reduced from five days to two
days, with a corresponding loss of earnings, with
effect from January 2008. In January 2010, the
appellant’s claim for Jobseeker’s Benefit was
disallowed on grounds that she had not suffered a
substantial loss of employment, as prescribed in
legislation. This decision was based on the fact
that she had been working a two-day week for the
previous year and that there had been no relevant
reduction in her normal level of employment.
Oral Hearing:
The appellant was accompanied
by a friend. In line with the details set out in her
letter of appeal, she reported that she had been
employed on a full-time basis by the same
employer for approximately 40 years prior to
suffering a substantial loss of employment, with
effect from January 2008. She stated that she had
not claimed Jobseeker’s Benefit immediately due
to difficult ongoing domestic and personal
circumstances, and that she had made do on her
reduced earnings. She outlined details of those
circumstances and sought to explain the reason
for the delay in making her claim.
Consideration of the Appeals Officer:
The
Appeals Officer referred to the Guidelines of the
Department of Social Protection on establishing
the normal level of employment for the purposes
of determining whether there has been a
substantial loss of employment, including the
following:
________‘Where the level of employment during the
preceding 13 weeks differed temporarily but
significantly from the person's previous level
of employment, it may be more appropriate for
the Deciding Officer to choose an alternative
period. For example, where the person's level
of employment fluctuated because of annual
workflow patterns or unusual circumstances,
the Deciding Officer should look at the record
of employment over the previous 26 or 52
weeks.’
The Appeals Officer noted that the substantial
loss condition was introduced in 1993 in tandem
with the effects of the extension of full Pay-
Related Social Insurance (PRSI) to include
certain part-time workers in order to ensure that a
person would only qualify for benefit where he or
she had had suffered a loss of employment.
While the legislation prescribes that a person
must suffer a loss of employment, it does not
prescribe a period prior to the claim which may
be considered in determining if such a loss has
been sustained.
He considered that while it was reasonable and
appropriate to outline in Guidelines a method for
determining a loss of employment in order to
ensure consistency in the application of the
condition, account must also be taken of
exceptional cases or circumstances. He observed
that where a person had not established a
consistent level of employment over several
consecutive years, it would be appropriate to
apply the method used in the Departmental
Guidelines. However, he was also of the view
that, having established a record of full-time
employment with the same employer over such a
protracted period of 40 years prior to suffering an
involuntary loss of employment, and given all of
the circumstances of this case, it would be
unreasonable to regard the appellant’s
employment at 2 days per week for
approximately 2 years as her normal level of
employment. In view of the appellant’s
exceptional employment record, and taking
account of her appeal contentions, he concluded
that she had suffered an involuntary substantial
loss of employment, as prescribed, for the
purposes of Jobseeker’s Benefit. Accordingly,
the appeal was allowed with effect from the date
of claim.
Outcome:
Appeals allowed.
End of Document
