Guernsey Law Reports 2005-06 GLR Note 5
ADMINISTRATOR TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY AUTHORITY v. BERESFORD
ROYAL COURT (Rowland, Deputy Bailiff): April 29th, 2005
Social Security—unemployment benefit—disqualification from benefit
B was an experienced master mariner and Royal Navy reserve officer. Having taken part in a Board of Industry Fieldwork Scheme in 1995, he remained in employment until 2001, when, on October 1st, he made a claim for unemployment benefit, which he received in accordance with s.24 of the Social Insurance (Guernsey) Law 1978. After 180 days, he was not entitled to receive further unemployment benefit, though he was entitled to contribution credits on account of his social insurance record. Subsequent attempts to find suitable employment failed. In September 2002, the Administrator, under s.93 of the Law, took the decision that it was in B’s and the States’ best interests that he participate in the Fieldwork Scheme, which was deemed a suitable form of employment. B replied that he would not accept a place on the Scheme because he considered it inappropriate, in the light of his professional experience, unsuitable, since he had physical problems, and, given his previous experience on the Scheme, degrading, and he believed that it would hinder his search for appropriate employment. Having received B’s response, the Social Security Authority informed him that the Administrator had disqualified him from receiving contribution credits, in accordance with s.26(1) of the Law, since B had been registered unemployed for almost a year, had been notified of suitable employment and had, in the Administrator’s opinion, refused it without good cause. His doctor confirmed that, although B had complained of pain, an examination and blood tests revealed no abnormalities. B appealed to the Tribunal to reverse the Administrator’s decision that the Fieldwork Scheme constituted appropriate employment for him. The Tribunal allowed B’s appeal on the grounds that he had demonstrated good cause to refuse to take up the placement.
Held: (1) The Administrator’s appeal would be allowed, since the Tribunal had erred in law in allowing B’s appeal. His subjective opinion that the Fieldwork Scheme was degrading was not something that could be taken into account, and the Tribunal could not rely upon his medical argument, as there was no evidence that the Scheme was inappropriate for medical reasons. His concern that he would be hindered in finding suitable employment was based on a misunderstanding (since he would have been encouraged to attend job interviews whilst on the Scheme), so it also could not be considered. It was in B’s interest that he join the Scheme, as, having been unemployed for so long, it was time that he broadened his horizons. In addition, the Scheme would have paid him more money than he would have received in benefits payments.
(2) Section 26(4) of the Law provided that employment would be deemed suitable if so determined by the Authority. When considering suitability under s.26(4), the Authority had to act in a reasonable manner and take into account all considerations in exercising its discretion; these included the expectation that, on an island such as Guernsey, individuals should take a high degree of responsibility for their own welfare, the low level of unemployment here, the level of Social Insurance contributions and the general level of taxation.
2009
Law Report
None
Guernsey Law Reports 2005-06 GLR Note 5