BARBARA BLACK-MELONE v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and VERIZON

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0395-06T30395-06T3

BARBARA BLACK-MELONE, KRISTA BOMBERSBACH, ROBERTA BUCHANAN, THOMAS BUCHANAN, AIDA COBIANCHI, LINDA CONDON, DOLORES COVERT, LORRAINE DEBLIS, CLAIRE DESANTIS, LINDA EVERETT, JOYCE FANUELE, JOHN FOX, JOSEPH FRUSCIANTE, MAUREEN HEGER, ANNE KRAUS-KEENAN, LAURA LANE, CATHERINE MAGNER, PAUL MARCIANTI, ROBERT MARGULSKI, GRIZEL MELILLO, RUSSELL MORANO, DIANE MULLANEY, VIRGINIA MUSHINSKI, LINDA ROSE NAPOLI, ROCHELLE NEWMAN, ROBERT NORVILLE, MIGUEL RIVERA, DEBRA SCADUTO, SAL SCHIFANO, GEORGE SPRENGEL, PATRICIA TOTH, JAN VAN ASSEN, EUGENE WALSH, SHIRLEY WHITAKER, BEN YASHINSKI,

Petitioners-Appellants,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR and VERIZON.

Respondents-Respondents.

___________________________________

 

Argued November 5, 2008 - Decided

Before Judges Winkelstein, Fuentes and Gilroy.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department

of Labor.

Michael J. DeBlis, Jr., argued the cause for

appellants.

Kathleen Barnett Einhorn argued the cause for

respondent Verizon (Genova, Burns & Vernoia,

attorneys; Francis J. Vernoia, of counsel and

on the brief; Ms. Einhorn, on the brief).

Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for

Board of Review (Alan C. Stephens, Deputy

Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellants, a group of former management employees at Verizon, appeal from the final decision of the Board of Review ("Board") denying their application for unemployment compensation benefits. The Board affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal of the Department of Labor, which found that appellants were disqualified from receiving benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) because they "left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work."

This finding was predicated on appellants' acceptance of a voluntary separation plan offered by Verizon. After carefully reviewing the record, and mindful of prevailing legal standards, we affirm. These are the salient facts.

I

The employer's principal witness at these proceedings was Sharon Hankins, Verizon's Manager of Employee Services. According to Hankins, based on demographic surveys conducted in late 2002 and early 2003, Verizon determined that approximately 18,000 employees nationwide were "retirement-eligible." These studies also revealed that many other employees were contemplating leaving the company for reasons unrelated to their retirement. In order to minimize the disruption and uncertainty associated with a large number of employees leaving the company at various times, Verizon executives devised a voluntary, incentive-driven separation plan.

On September 9, 2003, Larry Babbio, Verizon's President and Chief Executive Officer, announced the creation of a voluntary separation program while addressing company employees in a videoconference. In response to questions from conferees, Babbio indicated that the program would be offered on a voluntary basis and without a "cap" (limit) on the number of participants.

Via email sent on September 16, 2003, Ezra Singer, Verizon's Executive Vice President of Human Resources, notified all "Senior Leaders" of the creation of the Management Voluntary Separation Plan ("MVSP"). In this communication, Singer emphasized that "[i]t is essential that the voluntary character of this offering be preserved during these conversations [with employees] and throughout the notification and decision-making period. Employees should be free to choose to elect or not to elect the program, without pressure."

On September 17, 2003, Verizon sent an email to all "Management Employees" formally announcing the creation of the MVSP. A notation appearing immediately below the caption of the email emphasized that "[a]lmost all Verizon management and nonunion employees are eligible for this voluntary separation incentive." Those wishing to participate had to file their applications between October 1, 2003 and November 14 (later extended to November 15), 2003. The last day of work was November 21, 2003.

The email contained the following description of the benefits available under the MVSP.

HIGHLIGHTS OF VOLUNTARY PROGRAM

. . . .

Employees who volunteer for this program, will receive a separation payment equal to two weeks of pay times years of service up to a maximum of 35 weeks of pay. It is important to note both base and target incentive pay are used in calculating the payment.

This voluntary program also includes an additional payment determined by career band:

$15,000 for career bands 5, 6, and 7

$20,000 for career bands 2, 3, and 4

$30,000 for career bands 1 and Z

The above payments are pro-rated for part-time employees.

A separation transition enhancement, which provides a greater benefit, may apply for employees who have more than 17 1/2 years of service and whose base pay and target incentive is less than $111,430. This transition rule is explained in the online Q-and-As.

Employees can make an irrevocable election to receive their separation payment in either 2003 or 2004 to best meet their personal tax situation. This includes both the separation bonus and the separation pay based on years of service.

For volunteers who participate in a pension plan, the pension benefit will be increased by 5 percent. The pension lump sum will be calculated using the most advantageous of the formulas for calculating lump sums as described in the applicable pension plan.

Management volunteers for this program will be eligible for a prorated VIP incentive payment for the 2003 performance period. Consistent with the company practice, payments will be based on line of business and individual/team performance. Payments will be in March 2004.

For this voluntary program, Rule of 73 (age plus service, minimum of 15 years) allows for early retirement. Management volunteers who meet the Rule of 73 are eligible for retiree medical, dental and life insurance. Rule of 73 has certain pension reductions that apply to pension commencement prior to the Rule of 75.

The historically low interest rates that apply for a November 1, 2003 pension commencement date will be preserved for volunteers who separate under the program, including volunteers who choose to defer receipt of their pensions.

Generally speaking, when interest rates go up, pension lump sum values go down. Currently, interest rates are near historic lows, producing relatively higher lump sums, While individual circumstances vary, a 1 percent increase in interest rates (e.g. an increase from 4.37 percent to 5.37 percent) can cause an 8-12 percent reduction in the lump sum amount, depending on the participant's age.

Employees have the option to roll over qualified lump sum pension distributions into their Verizon Savings Plan account or another eligible retirement plan. By rolling the lump sum pension into an eligible plan, earnings are deferred and tax liability is postponed until amounts are received from that plan.

Medical (including dental and vision) and basic life insurance benefits will continue for one year, with no employee premium contributions.

During the volunteer period, financial planning assistance will be provided through employee meetings and a phone answer line provided by Ayco Corp., an outside financial planning firm. Employees who separate via this program will be able to continue to use this answer line through December 31, 2003, to help them make investment decisions, especially with regard to lump sums.

By email dated October 1, 2003, Hankins notified all management employees wishing to participate in the MVSP to visit the website set up to answer individual questions. Hankins indicated that through this electronic portal "eligible employees" who volunteered to participate could access "customized materials" describing in detail the features of the plan.

Once deemed eligible to participate, the website displayed a Notification Letter providing, in part, as follows:

NOTIFICATION LETTER

October 1, 2003

We are pleased to inform you that you are among a group of employees who are eligible to volunteer for a reduction in force (RIF). You have 45 days to consider volunteering, with all volunteer forms required by 11:59 p.m. on November 14, 2003. Should you volunteer, your last day on payroll as an employee will be November 21, 2003.

Generally, this voluntary separation program is being made available in two parts: (1) a pension enhancement available to eligible employees; and (2) severance program benefits available to eligible employees at or below the Executive Director (Career Band Z) level.

. . . .

Outplacement support services are available at the time of separation if you decide to volunteer and sign a Release under the terms of the voluntary program.

The website also contained a question and answer section intended to address what Verizon deemed important to individuals wishing to participate in the MVSP. One of the questions dealt directly with the issue of unemployment compensation benefits.

Q. If I volunteer to leave Verizon, will I be eligible for Unemployment Compensation?

A. Eligibility for unemployment benefits is determined according to various state laws and handled by state agencies, subject to their regulations and interpretations. Only the state agency can determine eligibility for unemployment benefits. To determine eligibility, the state agency may take into consideration any payments, such as severance, pension, etc., as well as whether the separation was voluntary or involuntary. Most states disqualify applicants who leave employment voluntarily. Since Verizon does not determine eligibility for unemployment, we recommend you contact your local unemployment office for guidance. This separation program is voluntary, and there are no caps or restrictions on the number of employees who can volunteer. Verizon is offering many incentives, some of which may entice employees to volunteer to leave Verizon who otherwise may have continued to work for Verizon. Each employee should evaluate his or her own personal situation considering all of the program's options and incentives, and the possibility that they may or in most cases, may not be eligible to receive unemployment benefits. An employee's decision is based on personal circumstance and is strictly voluntary. . . . Unemployment Compensation is not an absolute benefit, and the fact that this is a voluntary program will disqualify employees in most states.

As of October 9, 2003, nine days after the window for participation had opened, 3,000 employees had elected to accept the MVSP. A company bulletin issued on November 17, 2003, indicated that, nationwide, approximately 16,000 managers had chosen to participate in the MVSP. This amounted to an approximate ten percent reduction in Verizon's nationwide workforce. In New Jersey, 1,100 eligible managers decided to accept the MVSP.

All participants were given five days from the receipt of the November 17, 2003 notice to opt out of the program. Approximately 760 employees rescinded their participation. According to Verizon, all eligible employees who chose not to accept the MVSP are still employed at Verizon.

II

On March 5, 2004, the Appeal Tribunal issued a notice to claimants advising them that due to "the tremendous volume of cases," the Tribunal was consolidating all of the pending appeals "in order to decide these matters collectively." While the Tribunal recognized "that there are facts specific to each case," it nevertheless opined that "enough commonality exists to justify this course of action."

Thus, according to the procedure adopted, all cases would be decided through a "mass hearing," where "any claimant [could] elect to participate . . . ." Although each claimant had the right to be represented by counsel, it was the responsibility of each claimant "to coordinate such . . . effort[s]."

The mass hearing began on April 14, 2004, and continued for a total of twelve hearing days, conducted over the course of a year, finally concluding on May 6, 2005. On November 12, 2004, the Tribunal sent a notice to all individuals who had filed a claim for unemployment benefits, advising them that two days of hearings had been held on April 14, and 15, 2004; Verizon had presented its case, and "numerous claimants who [were] represented by counsel [had] testified. No unrepresented claimants [had] yet had the opportunity to testify."

Attached to this notice was a form through which claimants could indicate if they wished to testify. On April 12, 2005, the Tribunal sent a second notice with updates on the hearing's progress. Up to that date, thirty-seven claimants had responded indicating their desire to testify. Of the thirty-five claimants listed as appellants in this case, only Shirley Whitaker and Robert Norville testified before the Tribunal. In the interest of completeness, we will briefly summarize their testimony.

SHIRLEY WHITAKER

Shirley Whitaker had worked for Verizon for twenty-five years by the time she signed the MVSP. The last position she held was the director of support and response centers. She began working in this capacity in 2001. Prior to this, she was the director of employees sales and support.

In her last position as director of support and response centers, she was responsible for "the consumer line of business, to handle the back-office functions associated with consumer orders and billing[;]" and "had around 500 hourly employees and about 34 management employees reporting to me, and the area covered from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, through the northeast."

Whitaker testified that she was privy to internal data and reports that showed that the company was losing revenue due to a highly competitive environment. Through her counsel, Whitaker was presented with a number of news articles from the New York Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and from the website nj.com. Although these news sources reported that Verizon was "positive" about the staff reductions achieved through voluntary inducement-based programs, Whitaker nevertheless believed that the company was "looking to reduce people in the coming years[;]" thus, her "fears for further layoffs [were], you know, well grounded."

Throughout her direct testimony, Whitaker was repeatedly shown a series of news articles that, in her mind, confirmed her belief that further substantial staff reductions were gong to take place. She disregarded as unreliable company statements to the contrary because, based on her own assessment of Verizon's prospects for economic growth, the company's future looked uninviting. The following statement captures this belief.

[T]hings were not getting better in terms of the economic situation for the company. As technology has been changing, really there's more and more technological substitutions for the land-line business. You know, there's now more - you know, the wireless is basically a commodity now, they are giving away minutes, you can talk forever on that. A lot of people don't even have land-lines anymore. You know, technology is changing in terms of the wireless and the DSL and voice over IP. I mean, there was nothing to say that this was going to end.

In addition to this macro perspective, Whitaker's decision to accept the MVSP was also driven by her own personal situation.

I have a daughter in high school, getting ready to go to college, I couldn't afford to be without a known amount of money and I figured with the severance that I would be getting and knowing what the economy was like and knowing what my salary was a director and my years with Verizon and GTE, that it would be hard to get another job at my level. And so I felt that if I was in the situation in 2004 - and although Larry Babbio, in his conference call or the conference video had said that there would be no layoffs in 2003, that had basically given me that oh four weeks, five weeks, you know guarantee, I just didn't feel comfortable that there not be a chance that I could be laid off and not have a retirement nor a severance package to rely on, so that was definitely an incentive for me to take this package.

When asked directly whether she knew if her job would be eliminated at the time she signed the MVSP, Whittaker responded "[n]o, I had a fear that it would, but I did not know for sure." When asked to explain her decision to seek unemployment benefits, Whitaker responded: "I made my filing with unemployment based on what the company had told me." This statement, however, was immediately discredited when she was confronted with paragraph 18 of the MVSP, which reads: "No promises or representations have been made to me other than those in this release." She admitted to having read and understood this statement before signing the MVSP.

ROBERT NORVILLE

Robert Norville had been employed by Verizon for twenty-five years by the time he signed the MVSP. At the time of separation, he held the position of business development manager within a sales organization at Verizon; he was stationed primarily in New Jersey. He began working in this capacity in November 2002. His job was to expand Verizon's activities in the target areas of small and medium size business.

He conceded, however, that he "personally" did not achieve +that objective. Based on his failure to meet the expectations of his position, starting in July 2003, Verizon placed him on a performance improvement plan, giving him a three-month period to meet his business quota. If he failed to do so, he was subject to immediate termination. In his own words: "I would be released, it stated that in black and white in the performance improvement plan."

Norville was in his third month of this probationary period when Verizon offered the MVSP. The following exchange between Norville and his own attorney encapsulates his proffered reasons for accepting the MVSP.

MR. DE BLIS: So if you had not accepted the MVSP, when could you be expected to be discharged for your failed performance?

NORVILLE: Well, I would think immediately after September 29th [2003] or -- that's what the documentation stated that -- you know, I would be released after the three month period if I had not met my objectives. I had not met my objectives so I would expect to be released sometime in October [2003] or perhaps as of October 1st [2003], you know, the first day after the -- I'm sure there was some manager's discretion there, but, you know, the writing was on the wall. I mean, I wouldn't be on the plan if they weren't proceeding down the path of formal release.

On cross-examination, however, Norville conceded that he first became aware of the MVSP on October 1, 2003. He further admitted that he accepted the MVSP voluntarily, thus voluntarily severing his employment relationship with Verizon.

III

The Appeal Tribunal and Board of Review

At the conclusion of what it characterized as a "Mass Hearing," the Appeal Tribunal issued a formal decision through which it made the following factual findings:

The claimants last worked for the above-named employer in various positions at various locations for varying lengths of time, through approximately 11/22/03, when they were removed from the employer's payroll after accepting a voluntary separation package. The employer offered packages in the hope of reducing the staffing levels for both union associates and managers respectively.

The employer offered the Management Voluntary Separation Package (MVSP), nationwide, on 10/01/03 to all eligible management employees. The MVSP required an off-payroll date, which was ultimately determined to be 11/22/03. Between 10/01/03 and 11/22/03, the employer issued updates advising the staff of the number of favorable responses to the MVSP. The employer also offered management employees the opportunity to rescind their application for the MVSP.

The MVSP offered financial and other incentives to all management employees in order to persuade them to leave employment. At no time did the employer state that any employee would face termination. In a videoconference by the President and Chief Executive Officer, employees were informed there was no minimum or maximum number of participants in mind. Neither would there be any layoffs in 2003.

In accepting the MVSP, employees were advised to seek legal counsel before submitting their application. The documents also reiterated that the Separation Agreement and Release was the entire agreement, that there had been no other promises made to the employees and also confirmed that the employee was not relying on anything other than the written agreement in deciding to accept the MVSP. In New Jersey, 1,100 managers accepted the MVSP on the above terms.

Initial claims for benefits were filed on various dates, establishing various weekly benefit rates. Some claimants received benefits for various weeks. Claimants who were disqualified for benefits did not receive benefits for weeks claimed.

Against these findings, the Appeal Tribunal found plaintiffs "disqualified for benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) as of 11/16/03, as the [plaintiffs] left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work." On July 28, 2006, the Board of Review affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's decision without further elaboration.

IV

Legal Analysis

The central issue to be decided is whether the claimants are entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits. New Jersey's Unemployment Compensation Law (the Act), N.J.S.A. 43:21-1 to -24.30, "is social legislation that provides financial assistance to eligible workers suffering the distress and dislocation caused by unemployment." Utley v. Bd. of Review, 194 N.J. 534, 543 (2008) (citing Provident Inst. for Sav. v. Div. of Employment Sec., 32 N.J. 585, 590 (1960)). "'[T]he purpose of the [Act] is to provide some income for the worker earning nothing, because he is out of work through no fault or act of his own. . . .'" Ibid. (quoting Battaglia v. Bd. of Review, 14 N.J. Super. 24, 27 (App. Div. 1951)).

The Act's protection extends not only to employees who are involuntarily terminated, but also to employees who "voluntarily quit their jobs for good cause attributable to their work." Id. at 544 (citing Zubrycky v. ASA Apple, Inc., 381 N.J. Super. 162, 168 (App. Div. 2005)). However, N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) disqualifies an individual from the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits "'[f]or the week in which the individual has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work and for each week thereafter until the individual becomes reemployed.'" Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a)). Therefore, "benefits are available to a worker who voluntarily leaves his job only if it is for 'good cause attributable to [the] work.'" Ibid. If an employee leaves his job for personal reasons then he is disqualified under the statute. Id. at 544-45.

In Brady v. Board of Review, the Supreme Court established that if employees volunteer to accept an early retirement incentive package, they are disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), unless they "establish by 'definite objective facts,' (1) a well-grounded fear of 'imminent layoff' and (2) that they 'would suffer a substantial [economic] loss by not accepting early retirement'. . . ." 152 N.J. 197, 222 (1997). The claimant bears the burden of proof to establish he has the right to collect benefits. Id. at 218 (citing Zielenski v. Bd. of Review, 85 N.J. Super 46, 51 (App. Div. 1964)).

Furthermore, N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.5 provides that:

If an individual leaves work after he or she is notified by the employer of an impending layoff or discharge, he or she shall be subject to disqualification for benefits unless the individual will be separated within 60 days. For purposes of this section, imminent layoff or discharge is one in which the individual will be separated within 60 days.

[(Emphasis added).]

Employees are also not eligible to receive benefits if they participate in a "written voluntary layoff and/or early retirement incentive policy" in an effort to protect the jobs of co-workers who may be facing termination. In re N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.6 ex. rel. State Dep't of Labor, 395 N.J. Super. 394, 407-08 (App. Div. 2007) (quoting N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.6(a)). This is so because this class of claimants is not in imminent fear of involuntary termination, and would not suffer a "substantial economic loss" if they did not accept the employer's incentive package. Id. at 410-11.

Here, plaintiffs cannot prove they had a well-grounded fear of imminent layoff. In this light, we need not reach the second prong of the analysis involving "substantial economic loss." The Board of Review thus correctly denied these claims.

In Trupo v. Board of Review, we addressed for the first time whether an employee, who accepts an early retirement package, is disqualified from receiving benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). 268 N.J. Super. 54, 55 (App. Div. 1993). Trupo was a sixty-one-year-old woman who accepted an early retirement package offered by her employer. Ibid. We found Trupo had not presented "definitive objective facts" to support her subjective fear of impending job loss. Id. at 61. We declined to remand the case for amplification of the record because, even if successful, her retirement and pension benefits precluded her from collecting any unemployment compensation. Id. at 62-63.

We addressed this issue again in Fernandez v. Board of Review and held that Fernandez was ineligible for unemployment benefits. 304 N.J. Super. 603, 608 (App. Div. 1997). Fernandez worked for AT&T for twelve years. Id. at 605. While AT&T was restructuring, Fernandez received a letter, sent to all employees in the consumer products division, which stated there were "'many more people in [his division] than there [would] be following' the reorganization." Ibid. The letter further advised that employees could "'volunteer to terminate'" their employment. Ibid.

Before receiving this letter, Fernandez had also read an article in the Wall Street Journal, which he felt indicated that AT&T was in "dire financial straights." Ibid. Additionally, according to Fernandez, "he did not enjoy a good working relationship with his immediate supervisors." Ibid. Aside from the general notice sent to numerous employees, Fernandez was never directly informed that his job was at risk. Ibid. In this context, the court held that Fernandez did not show that he had "accepted the package because of a real, imminent, and substantial risk of losing his job." Id. at 607.

Our Supreme Court addressed this issue for the first time in Brady. The court cited Trupo and Fernandez approvingly and held that the GM claimants, who elected to participate in an early retirement program, were disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits since they failed to meet the standards established in Brady. See Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 215-16, 222.

The Brady employees, who worked in a Trenton GM factory, accepted early retirement plans after GM announced on December 3, 1992, that GM intended to close the factory by the end of 1993. Id. at 203-04. The Court found there was not a fear of imminent layoff since the notices did not "specifically target particular employees" and they did not establish a definite closing date. Id. at 218-19.

As noted by the Court, closing the plant was an "extensive complicated process that could not take place quickly." Id. at 219. Additionally, all of the claimants had significant seniority, which permitted them to continue to work at the plant for an additional substantial amount of time and potentially transfer to another plant. Ibid. Under these circumstances, the Court held that "[w]hile claimants may have had a subjective fear of layoff, such fear was not 'based upon definitive objective facts.'" Ibid. (citing Trupo, supra, 268 N.J. Super. at 61).

Our capacity to review decisions of an administrative agency is limited. Shuster v. Bd. of Review, 396 N.J. Super. 240, 245 (App. Div. 2007) (citing State-Operated Sch. Dist. v. Gaines, 309 N.J. Super. 327, 331 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 156 N.J. 381 (1998)). As long as "'substantial credible evidence supports an agency's conclusion, a court may not substitute its own judgment for the agency's even though the court might have reached a different result.'" Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 210 (quoting Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500, 513 (1992)). The agency's determination should only be reversed if it is "'arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.'" Shuster, supra, 396 N.J. Super. at 246 (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)); (citing Marro v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 57 N.J. Super. 335, 346 (App. Div. 1959)).

An important factor in the courts' determinations in Brady and Fernandez was that the claimants did not personally receive notice that they would be terminated in the future. Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 218-19; Fernandez, supra, 304 N.J. Super. at 608. Here too, these management employees did not claim they personally received formal notice from Verizon that they would be involuntarily terminated in the future. Verizon did not "specifically target particular employees." See Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 218.

The record before us shows that Verizon made available to this group of management employees a voluntary separation program, laden with incentives, as a means of reducing the company's management staff without resorting to involuntary layoffs. These employees made an informed, intelligent, and voluntary decision to take advantage of this opportunity. Their decision to resign from their jobs was driven by the incentives provided by Verizon through the MVSP, and their own personal circumstances.

There is nothing in the record before us that indicates that Verizon actually or constructively provided these plaintiffs with a rational basis to conclude that they would be terminated within sixty days of receiving the email announcing the availability of the MVSP. See N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.5. Stated differently, plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that they are legally entitled to receive unemployment benefits. See Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 222.

Affirmed.

In its brief before us, Verizon lists the total number of appellants as thirty. A document attached to appellants' Case Information Statement (CIS) lists a total of thirty-five individuals. The five appellants not listed by Verizon are: Joseph Frusciante, Ann Kraus-Keenan, Paul Marcianti, Patricia Toth, and Eugene Walsh. We have abided by appellant's CIS, and have therefore included all of the individuals listed therein.

This time period coincided with the five-year anniversary of the merger between Bell Atlantic and GTE.

Neither the Tribunal nor the Board of Review have cited any authority for the "mass hearing" adjudicative procedures employed here. However, no party to this appeal has raised any objection to this approach, or has otherwise challenged its use here. Thus, we express no opinion as to the propriety of creating what appears to be a de facto class action paradigm, without any apparent statutory or regulatory support.

(continued)

(continued)

24

A-0395-06T3

June 5, 2009