Case Studies » Family Income Supplement » Family Income Supplement -Case from 2016 Annual Report (ref: 2016/20)

2016/20 – Family Income Supplement

Oral hearing

Question at issue: Eligibility (full-time remunerative employment)

Background: The appellant had been in receipt of Family Income Supplement (FIS) during 2015 but payment ceased when she returned to full-time education in September. She made a new claim subsequently, stating that she was working 39 hours per week as a student nurse and she submitted supporting documentation from the Health Services Executive (HSE). Her claim was refused on grounds that she was not in full-time remunerative employment, in line with the qualifying criteria under the scheme.

Oral hearing: The appellant reported that she was in the final year of a four year degree course in nursing. She advised that, during the summer break in 2015, she had obtained employment as a receptionist and made a claim for FIS. She had been in receipt of payment at €128.00 per week until lectures resumed. She went on to say that the final part of the course was a nine month paid job placement and that she had commenced that placement in a local hospital in January 2016, working for 39 hours per week. She reported that she had been paid a rate of just over €7 an hour but that this was increased subsequently to the national minimum wage for all nurses. She confirmed that deductions were made for Pay Related Social Insurance (PRSI) and the Universal Social Charge (USC). She advised that she was due to complete her work placement in September 2016 and that she was in the process of looking for a nursing post on completion of the course.

Consideration: The Appeals Officer referred to the circumstances in which employments are to be excluded from consideration as remunerative employment for purposes of the legislation governing eligibility for FIS, as outlined in Article 175(2) of the Social Welfare (Consolidated Claims, Payments and Control) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No. 142 of 2007). He noted that the work placement programmes specified include Community Employment (CE) schemes, the National Internship Scheme and the Rural Social Scheme and he concluded that the appellant’s employment was not prescribed. He noted that deductions were being made from her earnings at the PRSI Class A rate. He observed that the only test to be applied, as provided for under Article 175, was whether the appellant’s remunerative employment was full-time, that is, whether it was employment of not less than 38 hours per fortnight which was expected to continue for three months. He concluded that this test was satisfied in the appellant’s case.

Outcome: Appeal allowed.