# Advice needed about requalifying for Jobseeker's Benefit.



## bellandbear (24 Jan 2012)

InFebruary 2010  I came back off maternity leave and was put on 3 days and claimed JSB for the other days.   

In September 2011 I got a letter stating that my JSB was nearly finished and as my employer needed someone up to Christmas I went back to work fulltime and obtained 13 weeks fulltime work.

I went into Social Welfare today and they said that I still had 20 weeks from my old claim left because it was within the last 6 months and that I would be reassessed after the 20 weeks.  Does that mean that I wont requalify when my 20 weeks are up because I will be part time applying even though I have 13 weeks contributions. 

Also I have 10 weeks fulltime last year and 3 weeks this year.  Will that make a difference if they are not all in the one tax year.  

Please help really worried.  I was really hoping that I would re-qualify and have enough contributions up for the next year.

Thanks


----------



## eastbono (25 Jan 2012)

bellandbear said:


> InFebruary 2010  I came back off maternity leave and was put on 3 days and claimed JSB for the other days.
> 
> In September 2011 I got a letter stating that my JSB was nearly finished and as my employer needed someone up to Christmas I went back to work fulltime and obtained 13 weeks fulltime work.
> 
> ...



From what you say you will re-qualify as you will have paid 13 "a" contributions from day 156 of your claim but you may be disallowed as you may be deemed to have no substantial loss i.e. when you jsb is exhausted your normal working pattern will be 3 days a week. If that is the case you can apply for jobseekers allowance which is means tested.


----------



## bellandbear (25 Jan 2012)

eastbono said:


> From what you say you will re-qualify as you will have paid 13 "a" contributions from day 156 of your claim but you may be disallowed as you may be deemed to have no substantial loss i.e. when you jsb is exhausted your normal working pattern will be 3 days a week. If that is the case you can apply for jobseekers allowance which is means tested.


 
I wont get JSA as my husband is working at the moment but like everyone else we are struggling to make ends meet.  Just a query if I got a few weeks fulltime work when my JSB is exhausted and then I reapplied would that make any difference.


----------



## eastbono (26 Jan 2012)

bellandbear said:


> I wont get JSA as my husband is working at the moment but like everyone else we are struggling to make ends meet.  Just a query if I got a few weeks fulltime work when my JSB is exhausted and then I reapplied would that make any difference.



SW will issue a form for your employer to complete re number of days worked...normally this is over a 13 week period but they can also go back 26 weeks and average out the number of days worked. The will also have a record of the number of days you have worked before you jsb exhausts from the dockets you hand it. I did the calculations roughly last night on your situation and if you will be working 3 days per week for the next 20 weeks (which is what you said you have left on your jsb) and even if they go back 26 weeks that would include the time you were full time it averages out at 3.46 days if I remember correctly so you would have no sub-loss. 

You must also remember that your employer has to be the one to reduce your working days. If you request the reduction in days you will be disqualified.

You could apply for family income supplement if you joint income is below a specific figure see link below.
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/SW22/Pages/1WhatisFamilyIncomeSupplement.aspx


----------



## bellandbear (27 Jan 2012)

Thank you so much for your reply. My employer said that in the next few months he would have a couple of weeks fulltime of course I will take this up but I can wait until my JSB is exhausted if I could get another 13 or more weeks employment when it is finished and then reapplied would it make a difference to my case.


----------



## eastbono (27 Jan 2012)

At the moment when you benefit exhausts do not re-apply for jsb. If you get 13 weeks full time work and even if sw go back 26 weeks then you would have a level of 4. When your days are reduced after getting 13 weeks full time work re-apply straight away for jsb and you should qualify that is if your are reduced to a 3 day week. 

In the meantime if your days are reduced from 3 to 2 then you would qualify for jsb as you would have a sub loss. But in this scenario if you ever work 3 days you will not get a payment on that particular week.

I hope I have explained this in a way that you can understand.


----------



## sunnygirl (7 Feb 2012)

This is an area where I believe significant fraud takes place. I do not refer to bellandbear. I have heard reports of many individuals (most often working mothers) who wish to remain on part-time work (typically 3 days per week), however they collude with their employer and social welfare (ie the taxpayer) picks up the tab for the remainder of the week. I would hope that the issue of substantial loss is truly applied when assessing applicants.


----------



## eastbono (8 Feb 2012)

sunnygirl said:


> This is an area where I believe significant fraud takes place. I do not refer to bellandbear. I have heard reports of many individuals (most often working mothers) who wish to remain on part-time work (typically 3 days per week), however they collude with their employer and social welfare (ie the taxpayer) picks up the tab for the remainder of the week. I would hope that the issue of substantial loss is truly applied when assessing applicants.



Substantial loss is truly applied. When someone presents themselves at sw office when their days are reduced they are issued with a form for their employer to complete and stamp stating that the reduction has been instigated by the employer. If the form comes back stating it was instigated by the employee then there is no substantial loss and no payment made.  Also when a person is making a sw claim for casual payment they have to declare on the form that they are looking for full time work.

Just to add a lot of employers are reducing peoples working days and this does not just apply to females(be they mothers or not) but also applies to males (be they fathers or not).


----------



## sunnygirl (8 Feb 2012)

A true analysis of substantial loss is not achieved by an employer stamping the form that they instigated the cut in the days. Thats exactly where the problem is! The problem is often collusion between employer and employee where the employee (in a lot of cases the mother) would rather be working 3 days a week and if she gets the remainder of the days paid by social welfare offset with the reduction in childcare costs she will pay, the net reduction is quite minimal. From the employers point of view it is a substantial cut to the wages bill for that employee. 

I do understand in some cases employers are cutting employees hours in these tough economic times - these are genuine cases obviously. 

The system that is currently used to assess genuine loss is not effective and open for abuse.


----------



## eastbono (8 Feb 2012)

sunnygirl said:


> A true analysis of substantial loss is not achieved by an employer stamping the form that they instigated the cut in the days. Thats exactly where the problem is! The problem is often collusion between employer and employee where the employee (in a lot of cases the mother) would rather be working 3 days a week and if she gets the remainder of the days paid by social welfare offset with the reduction in childcare costs she will pay, the net reduction is quite minimal. From the employers point of view it is a substantial cut to the wages bill for that employee.
> 
> I do understand in some cases employers are cutting employees hours in these tough economic times - these are genuine cases obviously.
> 
> The system that is currently used to assess genuine loss is not effective and open for abuse.



If you have any suggestions to tighten the rules on this as you feel employers are in collusion with employees... namely female employees who are parents then you can email the Minister for Social Protection and outline your proposals to curb this perceived collusion.


----------



## sunnygirl (9 Feb 2012)

Perhaps I will do that eastbono, it was actually on my mind because the practice DOES exist in reality. I hope I havent annoyed you too much by pointing this out.


----------



## eastbono (9 Feb 2012)

sunnygirl said:


> Perhaps I will do that eastbono, it was actually on my mind because the practice DOES exist in reality. I hope I havent annoyed you too much by pointing this out.



You havent annoyed me at all. The minister is always looking for ways in which to make savings so she may take any suggestions/proposals by you on board.


----------

