Man Compares Treatment by Social Welfare to Nazi Germany in Case

URGENT UPDATE: A man has taken a dramatic stand against the Department of Social Protection, claiming discrimination in a case that has drawn intense public scrutiny. Pavel Konosonok, 38, likened his treatment to that of “people in Nazi Germany” during an adjudication hearing at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) today.

Konosonok alleges that he was unfairly required to collect his unemployment benefits from a local post office in Athlone instead of having them directly deposited into his bank account, a process he had been accustomed to for over two years. This change, instituted in September 2023, followed the lifting of Covid-19 public health restrictions which had previously mandated electronic funds transfers.

Three jobseeker payments were redirected to the post office but went unclaimed, leading to the suspension of Konosonok’s benefits. He argues that this requirement constitutes discrimination on multiple grounds under the Equal Status Acts, including age, sexual orientation, disability, and his membership in the Travelling community.

In an emotional testimony, Konosonok stated, “Animals in the zoo would be treated better than I am at the moment,” expressing that the department considers him “less than human.” He further claimed that the situation had left him homeless, forcing him to scavenge for food. “I’m not surprised that some people commit suicide after dealing with social welfare,” he added, highlighting the severe emotional and psychological toll of his circumstances.

WRC adjudicator David James Murphy pressed Konosonok for clarification on his comparison to Nazi Germany. Konosonok insisted that the department’s insistence on a specific payment method was a form of coercion. “They tried to force me to receive payments by their choice of payment, not my choice,” he said, pointing out disparities in treatment that he believes unfairly benefit others, specifically mentioning Ukrainians receiving payments via electronic transfers.

Mark Rodgers, representing the Department of Social Protection, countered that the decision to revert to post office payments was in compliance with a 2007 statutory instrument. He argued that this legislation grants the department the authority to determine payment methods and that Konosonok had previously signed a form nominating the Athlone Post Office for his payments.

Rodgers asserted that the discrimination claim could not succeed as the law allows for such actions mandated by legislation.

The WRC hearing has been adjourned, with Konosonok given until October 27 to submit his response to the department’s arguments. A decision from Murphy will follow thereafter.

This developing story raises critical questions about the treatment of vulnerable individuals within social welfare systems. As the case unfolds, its implications could resonate widely across other jurisdictions facing similar challenges.

Stay tuned as we monitor this urgent situation for further updates.