MARGARET A. POWERS v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1034-04T11034-04T1

MARGARET A. POWERS,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR, and BURLINGTON

COAT FACTORY,

Respondents.

 

Submitted September 14, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Conley and Winkelstein.

On appeal from a final decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor, 40,259.

Margaret A. Powers, appellant pro se.

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney for respondent, Board of Review, Department of Labor (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; John C. Turi, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Burlington Coat Factory, respondent pro se, did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Margaret Powers, appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review issued on October 15, 2004, affirming the August 12, 2004 decision of the Appeal Tribunal, which found that appellant was disqualified for unemployment benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) on the grounds that she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to her work. We affirm.

Appellant worked for Burlington Coat Factory beginning in October 2003. She claimed she was having difficulty with co-workers and one or more had tampered with her automobile. She filed a police report, but subsequently withdrew her complaint. The employer did, however, transfer her to another department, where she did not complain of difficulties with employees. Nevertheless, on May 22, 2004, appellant quit her employment. She merely left her time card on her manager's desk without telling anyone or leaving a note that she was resigning. At her telephonic hearing, which was held on August 11, 2004, she claimed the harassment had continued, but she did not bring it to her employer's attention.

An applicant for unemployment compensation has the burden to prove entitlement to those benefits. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 218 (1997). Appellate courts have a limited role in reviewing a decision of the Board of Review. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656-57 (1999). We will only reverse if the Board's decision is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or not supported by the substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Ibid.

We have carefully reviewed the record in light of the applicable law. We do not find the Board's decision to have been arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. The Board's decision was supported by the substantial credible evidence in the record. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the Appeal Tribunal. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D)&(E).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1034-04T1

September 22, 2005