GENE R. QUINTIERI 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1273-04T11273-04T1

GENE R. QUINTIERI,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR, and SOMERSET MEDICAL

CENTER,

Respondents.

______________________________________________

 

Submitted November 14, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges A.A. Rodr guez and C.S. Fisher.

On appeal from Decision of the Board of Review, No. 35,665.

Gene R. Quintieri, appellant pro se.

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ellen A. Reichart, Deputy Attorney General, on the letter brief).

Respondent Somerset Medical Center did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

In this appeal, appellant Gene R. Quintieri argues that the Board of Review's final agency decision that denied him unemployment compensation benefits ought to be reversed. We disagree and affirm.

Appellant was employed by Somerset Medical Center from October 1992 to January 30, 2004. In July 2003, appellant informally advised his supervisor of his desire to take a two-month vacation consisting of one month of paid vacation time and the other month without pay. The supervisor indicated that this request should be submitted formally and at the appropriate time.

Upon his later formal request, appellant was advised by his supervisor that the request would not be honored because it did not fall within the employer's vacation guidelines. Notwithstanding, appellant advised his supervisor that he was still going to take the time off. The supervisor stated that if he did so it would be without authorization. The supervisor also advised appellant that if he took the two-month vacation, he would be terminated and would not be eligible to be rehired, but that if appellant resigned, he might be able to regain his job upon reapplying upon his return. As a result, appellant submitted a letter of resignation on January 26, 2004, indicating that his departure was based upon "personal plans" and expressing his "hope" that upon returning to New Jersey at the end of March 2004 he would "find [his] position available" and that he would then "reapply for the job."

When appellant was unable to regain his job following his return to New Jersey, he applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The matter came before a deputy claims examiner, who concluded on May 13, 2004 that appellant left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. Appellant filed an appeal of that determination to the appeal tribunal. A hearing was conducted on July 6, 2004 and, on July 27, 2004, the appeal tribunal held appellant disqualified for benefits. Appellant filed an appeal to the Board of Review, which, on September 16, 2004, affirmed the decision of the appeal tribunal. Appellant then filed a notice of appeal with this court.

N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) disqualifies a claimant for benefits when that claimant "has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work." This statute expresses the legislative intent that unemployment compensation benefits be paid only to those who have become unemployed through no fault of their own. Indeed, the Board of Review is obligated to preserve the fund against the claims of those not intended to share in its benefits. Accordingly, as the Supreme Court has held, "[w]here it is reasonably foreseeable that an employee's voluntary conduct will render him unemployable, and his actions actually do lead to the loss of a prerequisite of employment, the employee leaves work 'voluntarily' without good cause attributable to such work under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a)." Yardville Supply Co. v. Board of Review, 114 N.J. 371, 377 (1989). The Board of Review applied this standard in rejecting appellant's claim to unemployment compensation benefits.

Our scope of review of that decision is quite limited. We defer to the factual determinations of administrative agencies when supported by "sufficient credible evidence," Mullarney v. Board of Review, 343 N.J. Super. 401, 406 (App. Div. 2001), and we will not substitute our judgment for the agency's, or otherwise disturb the agency's decision, unless we conclude that it was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Brady v. Board of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997).

 
The facts adduced at the hearing reveal that appellant voluntarily left his employment in order to take an extended vacation and that he understood, in leaving for this two-month vacation, that he was acting without authorization as well as with a clear understanding that this unauthorized departure would result in the loss of employment. We find nothing arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable in the denial of benefits in that circumstance.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-1273-04T1

November 28, 2005