ROSEANN D'ANDREA v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

(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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2564-07T32564-07T3

ROSEANN D'ANDREA,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR, FLOW SAFE, INC. and

ACCOUNTEMPS,

Respondents.

______________________________________________

 

Submitted May 19, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Chambers.

On appeal from a Final Decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 155,810.

Roseann D'Andrea, appellant pro se.

Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ellen A. Reichart, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Claimant Roseann D'Andrea appeals from the decision of the Board of Review mailed December 7, 2007, denying her claim for unemployment benefits. We affirm.

Claimant was employed as a bookkeeper by Flow Safe, Inc. commencing in June 2004. On May 9, 2007, she gave notice that she was resigning from the position effective June 1, 2007. She contended that she did so because she objected to the work she was required to do including repeatedly calling customers delinquent on their accounts; she objected to the manner in which she was treated; and she complained that she did not receive a raise she had expected. The employer presented testimony that claimant spent time at work on personal matters and resisted compliance with directives concerning collection calls; it denied any ill-treatment of claimant or wrongful denial of a raise.

On May 9, 2007, the claimant was directed to call a particular customer about an outstanding bill. This would have been her fifth call to that customer. When she did not make the call, she received an email from her employer chastising her for not doing so. In response, plaintiff advised that she was resigning effective June 1, 2007.

D'Andrea was initially found eligible for unemployment benefits by the Deputy. Her employer appealed that decision to the Appeal Tribunal which held a hearing on October 24, 2007. In a decision mailed that same day, the Appeal Tribunal reversed the decision of the Deputy and found that D'Andrea was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). In reaching this conclusion the Appeal Tribunal stated:

[T]he claimant has not met her burden of proving that the work environment was either hostile or negative. The working conditions, as portrayed by the claimant, are not shown to be abnormal. First the tribunal rejects the claimant's contention that she left due to not receiving either a pay increase or full time work hours in the fall of 2004. . . . The tribunal believes that the claimant was not promised full time hours, but, rather, given the possibility of a change in her employment status, based on business conditions.

Secondly, any criticism given to the claimant by the employer is considered to be within the employers [sic] scope. Comments made by the employer did not appear to be volatile, aggressive or otherwise vindictive. The claimant has not shown good cause for leaving the work.

The claimant left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work and is disqualified for benefits as of 05/27/07 in accordance with N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a).

The Appeal Tribunal remanded the matter for determination of any refund in accordance with established procedures. The Board of Review in a decision mailed December 7, 2007, affirmed the determination of the Appeal Tribunal.

Under New Jersey law, a person is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if she "left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work." N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). The employee has the burden of proving that this standard has been met. N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(c); Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 218 (1997). "[G]ood cause attributable to such work" is defined as "a reason related directly to the individual's employment, which was so compelling as to give the individual no choice but to leave the employment." N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(b). When evaluating the employee's reasons for leaving employment, "the test is one of ordinary common sense and prudence. 'Mere dissatisfaction with working conditions which are not shown to be abnormal or do not affect health, does not constitute good cause for leaving work voluntarily.'" Domenico v. Bd. of Review, 192 N.J. Super. 284, 288 (App. Div. 1983) (quoting Medwick v. Bd. of Review, 69 N.J. Super. 338, 345 (App. Div. 1961)) (citation omitted). In order to receive unemployment benefits, an employee's decision to leave a job "must be compelled by real, substantial and reasonable circumstances not imaginary, trifling and whimsical ones." Ibid. An employee is expected "to do what is necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed." Ibid.

The facts in this case do not support a finding of good cause under this standard. We will not overturn an agency's ruling unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." Brady v. Bd. of Review, supra, 152 N.J. at 210. If the Board of Review's factual findings are supported "by sufficient credible evidence," the court will accept them. Ibid. (quoting Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453, 459 (1982)). This record contains substantial evidence to support the Board of Review's conclusion that D'Andrea left her job "voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work," N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), and thus she was not qualified to receive unemployment benefits.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-2564-07T3

June 12, 2009