ALBERT DONATO v. BOARD OF REVIEW

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4921-04T54921-04T5

ALBERT DONATO,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

Respondent,

and

MULLIGAN SECURITY CORPORATION,

Employer-Respondent.

 
___________________________________________

Submitted: March 13, 2006 - Decided April 4, 2006

Before Judges Stern and A. A. Rodr guez.

On appeal from a final decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor, 51,851.

Roberta L. Tarkan, attorney for appellant.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jennifer B. Pitre, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

The decision of the Board of Review (Board), which disqualified Albert Donato (claimant) for unemployment benefits, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) is affirmed.

These are the material facts. Claimant worked for Mulligan Security Corporation (employer) as a supervisor of security personnel, from March 1, 2004 until his resignation on September 13, 2004. He applied for unemployment benefits. A Deputy to the Director determined that Claimant was disqualified for benefits from September 12, 2004 because Claimant had voluntary quit his employment.

Claimant appealed to the Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal held a hearing at which claimant testified that he quit his employment without giving his immediate supervisor prior notice or a specific reason for his leaving because of what he perceived to be health and safety reasons. Claimant thought his health was at risk because he was getting headaches due to the sunlight which shone through the eight-foot windows at his worksite. Claimant admitted that he did not consult a physician before quitting and received no medical advice to quit his job. Claimant also testified that he quit his job for safety reasons due to his dissatisfaction with the security radios issued by his employer. He believed there were "dead spots" in the radio frequency which caused problems in the transmission of communication between security guards. He requested that his employer reprogram the radios, but this request was declined. Claimant conceded that although he believed there was a safety problem with the employer's radio, he did not sustain any injuries nor was he put in jeopardy by the alleged communication problem. The employer's representative Don Uhlig, was present at the hearing, but elected not to testify or issue a closing statement.

The Appeal Tribunal upheld the determination of the Deputy, finding that Claimant left his position voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work when he became dissatisfied with the amount of sunlight to which he was exposed and because he was displeased with the programming of the communications system.

Claimant appealed to the Board. The Board adopted the findings and recommendation of the Appeal Tribunal. Claimant appeals to us contending that: (1) he had good cause for not returning to work; and (2) the purpose of the unemployment benefits legislation is achieved by permitting him to obtain his benefits. We disagree.

It is settled that, "mere dissatisfaction with working conditions that are not abnormal and do not affect health, does not constitute good cause for leaving work involuntarily." Domenico v. Board of Review, 192 N.J. Super. 284, 288 (App. Div. 1983), (quoting Medwick v. Board of Review, 69 N.J. Super. 338, 345 (App. Div. 1961)). Here, the Claimant's reasons for resigning constitute mere dissatisfaction with the working conditions. Therefore, the Board's finding that claimant left work voluntarily is supported by undisputed, sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

 
Moreover, it is a claimant's burden to show by competent medical proof that the work aggravated or caused a medical condition or made it harder to recover from one. Israel v. Bally's Park Place, 283 N.J. Super. 1, 5-6 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 143 N.J. 326 (1995). Here, claimant did not present any medical evidence that his health was affected. Thus, claimant did not sustain the requisite burden.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-4921-04T5

April 4, 2006