ETHEL YHAP v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMAnnotate this Case
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DOCKET NO. A-3558-08T33558-08T3
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR and YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM,
Submitted: February 3, 2010 - Decided:
Before Judges Stern and J. N. Harris.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Docket No. 206,978.
Ethel Yhap, appellant pro se.
Paula T. Dow, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Alan C. Stephens, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Respondent Yellow Freight System has not filed a brief.
The claimant, Ethel Yhap, appeals from a final administrative determination of the Board of Review, dated February 24, 2009, affirming the Appeal Tribunal's denial of unemployment benefits based on the Tribunal's decision of January 5, 2009. The Appeal Tribunal concluded that claimant "left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work." See N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a).
Ms. Yhap, an employee of the Yellow Freight System at its terminal in Elizabeth for five months, requested a leave of absence for five weeks to take care of her ill parents, but was not employed long enough to obtain same as a matter of law or company policy. There were communications between claimant and company representatives, including Rick Mitchell, the terminal manager, who expressed sympathy for her situation and indicated some willingness to accommodate her. However, Mitchell also explained the problems facing the company and himself if he did so. In any event, nothing was finalized or developed to excuse claimant's absence. She nevertheless did not report for work and there was no work available for her when she was ready to return.
The Appeal Tribunal concluded claimant had left voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. Given the Appeal Tribunal's findings, the deference we must give to the agency and our limited scope of review, we must affirm the final administrative determination. See Brady v. Board of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210, 213-14, 218 (1997); N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a); N.J.A.C. 12:17-12.3.
The Tribunal expressly noted that "the claimant was not discharged for misconduct connected with the work." See N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(b).
Her father had suffered congestive heart failure and was hospitalized. He was the "primary caretaker" for claimant's mother who is on dialysis three times a week.
February 18, 2010