Question about legality of 9 week Jobseeker's Allowance suspension

dgallagher_73

Hello all,

I have a family member who's on Jobseeker's Allowance at the moment who thinks they will be put on a 9 week payment suspension for reasons that might be too long to describe on here and I was wondering would someone with legal knowledge be able to help with a question I have regarding the legal powers the government has in enforcing this 9 week suspension?

Basically if you don't fulfill certain requirements needed to receive Jobseeker's Allowance you will be put on a penalty rate for 21 days and then after that you can face a 9 week suspension.

I've read the following on Citizen's Information "If you have been placed on a penalty rate and you continue not to meet the conditions you can be disqualified from your jobseeker’s payment for up to 9 weeks. You cannot be disqualified immediately – a penalty rate must apply first for at least 21 days." "

I'm just wondering does anybody with any legal knowledge know whether it is actually true that the government is only allowed to suspend payment for a maximum of 9 weeks or is there something that's more to this than meets the eyes?
For example is it at their discretion for them to suspend payment for a second time for a period of 9 weeks at a later?

I've looked through the Social Welfare bills from the last few years and the 9 week suspension thing is only mentioned in the Social Welfare Consilidation Act 2005. It doesn't specify how many times the period of suspension can be enforced.

I can elaborate on the situation if necessary.

Many thanks

whippet

Elaborating would be useful .. however with jobseekers the clue is usually in the name Seeking a Job ... there are mechanisms in place to try and filter out the ‘can’t work’ from the ‘won’t work’ ... and there are other social welfare schemes for those who fit the. ‘Can’t work’ side of the house

dgallagher_73

whippet wrote: »

Elaborating would be useful .. however with jobseekers the clue is usually in the name Seeking a Job ... there are mechanisms in place to try and filter out the ‘can’t work’ from the ‘won’t work’ ... and there are other social welfare schemes for those who fit the. ‘Can’t work’ side of the house

I'll do my best to elaborate.

The family member is question has recently been offered a mandatory placement on the Tus scheme which from what I've been told is basically a "work-for-welfare" thing. The scheme works by placing people who have been on the dole for at least a year into a mandatory work placement that lasts 12 months. Litter picking, caretaking etc are some examples of the type of work that's involved in the scheme. I personally think it's a really good idea to be honest.

Anybody who has been selected for the scheme who refuses to take up an offered placement will have there weekly payment reduced for 21 days and if after this period of time they continue to refuse to take up a placement they will be put on a 9 week suspension.
Even though I have strongly advised against him doing so he intends to go through with the 9 week suspension rather than take up a placement for a year. I've tried to argue that it would be good for them to take up the placement that's been offered on the scheme in order to be able to put down something on their CV. They lost their job some time ago and it would be good to fill in the gap between then and when he acquires a new job by taking up the offered placement.

The government is legally allowed to carry out this 9 week suspension at their discretion but I'm wondering if someone makes it through the 9 weeks without a payment are they basically invulnerable from having their payment suspended for 9 weeks again afterwards? I have a feeling that it can't be as easy for him to just bare the 9 week suspension and eventually his payment will be fully reinstated.

I've looked through a few of the yearly Social Welfare Acts that have been released online and the only one that seems to mention the 9 week suspension is the Social Welfare Consildation Act 2005 which states the following:

(6) A person shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment
benefit for a period not exceeding 9 weeks as may be determined
under this Act where he or she—
(a) has lost his or her employment through his or her own
misconduct or has voluntarily left his or her employment
without just cause,
(b) has refused an offer of suitable employment,
(c) has without good cause refused or failed to avail himself
or herself of any reasonable opportunity of receiving
training provided or approved of by An Foras A´ iseanna
Saothair as suitable in his or her case,
d) has failed or neglected to avail himself or herself of any
reasonable opportunity of obtaining suitable employment,
or
(e) being a person under the age of 55 years who, in accordance
with the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2003,
has been dismissed by his or her employer by reason of
redundancy, has received or is entitled to receive any
moneys, in excess of a prescribed amount, in respect of
that redundancy under those Acts or under an agreement
with his or her employer,



The Social Welfare Act 2010 mentions the "National Employment Action Plan" which has something to do with the Tus scheme.

dgallagher_73

Here's the part in the Social Welfare Act 2010 where it mentions a suspension of payment if the person refuses to avail of a program that is pursuant to the "National Employment Action
Plan". The NEAP is basically another way of talking about the Tus scheme. You can see the specified part at (c).


“(4A) A person shall be disqualified for receiving jobseeker’s
allowance where he or she has refused an offer of
suitable employment.”.
9.—(1) The Principal Act is amended by inserting the following
section after section 195:
195A.—Notwithstanding section 195, in the case
of a person who—
(a) has, when requested to do so by an
officer of the Minister, without good
cause refused to participate, or to
agree to participate, in a course of
training which is considered appropriate
by the officer having regard to
the training needs of the person and
his or her personal circumstances,
(b) has, without good cause, refused or
failed to avail himself or herself of any
reasonable offer of training provided
or approved of by An Foras Áiseanna
Saothair, or
(c) has, without good cause, refused or
failed to avail himself or herself of an
opportunity of participating in a programme
administered by An Foras
Áiseanna Saothair and the Minister
pursuant to the plan commonly known
as the National Employment Action
Plan,

ohnonotgmail

there is nothing in that legislation that says they can only be suspended once. so after his suspension is up he may find himself being offered another placement and getting suspended again if he refuses it.

dgallagher_73

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is nothing in that legislation that says they can only be suspended once. so after his suspension is up he may find himself being offered another placement and getting suspended again if he refuses it.

Why would they specify that the suspension period should not exceed 9 weeks? 9 weeks is an unusually specific time period.

Why wouldn't they word it in a way that would suggest that their payment would be suspended indefinitely until they take up an placement offer on the scheme?

ohnonotgmail

dgallagher_73 wrote: »

Why would they specify that the suspension period should not exceed 9 weeks? 9 weeks is an unusually specific time period.

Why wouldn't they word it in a way that would suggest that their payment would be suspended indefinitely until they take up an placement offer on the scheme?

I have no idea why they worded it that way. But that is the way they have worded so you have to go with what you know.

dgallagher_73

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I have no idea why they worded it that way. But that is the way they have worded so you have to go with what you know.

Is it possible for me to actually contact the Oireachtas about my question? Would they be able to give me a nuanced answer to the question I have about the law?

ohnonotgmail

dgallagher_73 wrote: »

Is it possible for me to actually contact the Oireachtas about my question? Would they be able to give me a nuanced answer to the question I have about the law?

i'm sure you could try probably via a TD but that won't help your family member.

dgallagher_73

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i'm sure you could try probably via a TD but that won't help your family member.

Why do you say it wont help my family member if I contact a TD?

Sleeper12

dgallagher_73 wrote:

Why would they specify that the suspension period should not exceed 9 weeks? 9 weeks is an unusually specific time period.

If I am convicted of drink driving & I get the maximum sentence, I can still be convicted again for drink driving and again get the maximum sentence.

I don't understand the logic in what you are implying. Take the 9 weeks suspension and then refuse all job offers and interviews because you can only get one 9 week suspension? I can't see that working

ohnonotgmail

dgallagher_73 wrote: »

Why do you say it wont help my family member if I contact a TD?

you want to question why a limit of 9 weeks is in legislation. what do you expect from that? they might explain why that limit was chosen but they wont change it. so how does that help your family member?

dgallagher_73

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you want to question why a limit of 9 weeks is in legislation. what do you expect from that? they might explain why that limit was chosen but they wont change it. so how does that help your family member?

I certainly wasn't expecting them to change it. I was just trying to understand why a time period of 9 weeks was chosen.

runawaybishop

dgallagher_73 wrote: »

Is it possible for me to actually contact the Oireachtas about my question? Would they be able to give me a nuanced answer to the question I have about the law?

Just contact a social welfare office. I would suspect that of your family member refuses to engage they will be removed from payment completely.

strandroad

dgallagher_73 wrote: »

I certainly wasn't expecting them to change it. I was just trying to understand why a time period of 9 weeks was chosen.

Most likely it's simply 2 months suspension. Welfare is paid weekly so it's converted to weeks of payment.

Returning from his suspension your relative will probably be offered another placement and the cycle continues.

Smee_Again

dgallagher_73 wrote: »

I certainly wasn't expecting them to change it. I was just trying to understand why a time period of 9 weeks was chosen.

This is a complete guess, but with the reduced payment for 21 days and then a 9 week suspension the total is 12 weeks which is a nice round(ish) number and roughly equal to 4 months.

dgallagher_73

strandroad wrote: »

Most likely it's simply 2 months suspension. Welfare is paid weekly so it's converted to weeks of payment.

Returning from his suspension your relative will probably be offered another placement and the cycle continues.

So they just arbitrarily choose 2 months as the length of time that someone can have their payment suspended? I still don't understand why they don't just suspend someone's payment indefinitely until they take up a job offer on the scheme?

Wouldn't that be a better way of forcing someone to participate on the scheme if they knew that their payment will be suspended permanently unless they take up a placement offer?

dgallagher_73

Smee_Again wrote: »

This is a complete guess, but with the reduced payment for 21 days and then a 9 week suspension the total is 12 weeks which is a nice round(ish) number and roughly equal to 4 months.

But why wouldn't they put people on a reduced payment for 21 days and THEN suspend their payment indefinitely until they take up an offer. Why would they specify a 9 week suspension period after the 21 day reduced payment period.

strandroad

dgallagher_73 wrote: »

So they just arbitrarily choose 2 months as the length of time that someone can have their payment suspended? I still don't understand why they don't just suspend someone's payment indefinitely until they take up a job offer on the scheme?

Wouldn't that be a better way of forcing someone to participate on the scheme if they knew that their payment will be suspended permanently unless they take up a placement offer?

Eventually it can be stopped altogether, read this:
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/conditions_for_getting_a_jobseekers_payment.html#lc9813

The two months suspension is for the person to have a chance to reengage I guess.

Witcher

dgallagher_73 wrote: »

But why wouldn't they put people on a reduced payment for 21 days and THEN suspend their payment indefinitely until they take up an offer. Why would they specify a 9 week suspension period after the 21 day reduced payment period.

You're not really focusing on the important issues here

Your 'family member' can still be suspended again unless the Tus scheme is accepted.

dgallagher_73

Witcher wrote: »

You're not really focusing on the important issues here

You Your 'family member' can still be suspended again unless the Tus scheme is accepted.

I don't understand?

Witcher

dgallagher_73 wrote: »

I don't understand?

Accept the scheme = payments continue

Reject or ignore it = payments stop

Reject or ignore it a second time = payments stop again

dgallagher_73

Witcher wrote: »

Accept the scheme = payments continue

Reject or ignore it = payments stop

Reject or ignore it a second time = payments stop again

My overwhelming opinion from the beginning was that it would never be as simple for him to avoid a placement on the scheme just by going through with the 9 week suspension and to continue ignoring placement offers afterwards.

I'm just curious as to why they don't simply state that people will eventually have their payment suspended indefinitely in the Social Welfare Acts rather than mentioning the 9 week suspension period.

ohnonotgmail

dgallagher_73 wrote: »

My overwhelming opinion from the beginning was that it would never be as simple for him to avoid a placement on the scheme just by going through with the 9 week suspension and to continue ignoring placement offers afterwards.

I'm just curious as to why they don't simply state that people will eventually have their payment suspended indefinitely in the Social Welfare Acts rather than mentioning the 9 week suspension period.

probably because they want to give people a chance to cop on. 9 weeks without money should be enough for most people to realise they can't just sit on their arse indefinitely.

Jank1

They won't be offended the Tus placement again right away after the 9 weeks suspension is up but they'll likely be offended it again say 3 months, 6 months down the road then rinse and repeat.

dgallagher_73

Jank1 wrote: »

They won't be offended the Tus placement again right away after the 9 weeks suspension is up but they'll likely be offended it again say 3 months, 6 months down the road then rinse and repeat.

I agree with you. That was my hunch from the beginning.