EFREM BALL v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT and CENTRAL LEWMAR, L.L.C.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1606-08T21606-08T2

EFREM BALL,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR and WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,

and CENTRAL LEWMAR, L.L.C.,

Respondents.

__________________________________

 

Submitted February 4, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Simonelli.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 186,381.

Efrem Ball, appellant pro se.

Paula T. Dow, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondents Board of Review and Department of Labor and Workforce Development (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Alan C. Stephens, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Respondent Central Lewmar has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Appellant Efrem Ball appeals from the final decision of the Board of Review (Board) that affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's determination that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work, N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a).

Appellant contends that his employer caused his unemployment by unjustifiably suspending him without pay, thus creating an economic hardship resulting in his inability to pay his commuting expenses. Based upon our review of the record, in light of the applicable law, we conclude that appellant's contention is without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). However, we add the following comments.

Appellant began working for Central Lewmar, LLC (Central) as a fork lift operator on January 21, 2008. On March 7, 2008, he was indefinitely suspended without pay for insubordination and "threatening action." Appellant filed a grievance through his union. The suspension was upheld, but modified to ten days through March 17, 2008.

Central instructed appellant to report to work on March 18, 2008. Appellant refused to return to work unless Central paid his commuting expenses in advance. Central would not do so. Appellant declined his family's offer to lend him money for his commuting expenses, and never returned to work.

"[G]enerally commuting troubles will not be considered work-related." Utley v. Board of Review, 194 N.J. 534, 551 (2008). "[W]hen "commuting problems" arise solely from the personal circumstances of the worker, unrelated to an alteration in the terms or conditions of employment, the worker who voluntarily quits his job cannot show "good cause" qualifying him for benefits. Id. at 544-45.

Central did not alter the terms or conditions of appellant's employment, and did not interfere in any way with appellant's ability to commute to work. Rather, appellant's commuting problem resulted from his suspension for insubordination and "threatening action." Accordingly, he has failed to establish "good cause" qualifying him for unemployment benefits.

Affirmed.

Appellant's commuting distance to work by car was five miles one way.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1606-08T2

February 24, 2010