JOSEPH M. SCHETTINO v. BOARD OF REVIEW and SONY ELECTRONICS, INC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3473-09T3

JOSEPH M. SCHETTINO,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW and

SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Respondents.

_______________________________________________

April 25, 2011

Submitted February 22, 2011 - Decided

Before Judges Kestin and Newman.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 239,340.

Joseph M. Schettino, appellant pro se.

Paula T. Dow, 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).

Respondent Sony Electronics, Inc. has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Claimant, Joseph M. Schettino, appeals from a Board of Review decision adopting a determination of the Appeal Tribunal that held claimant to be disqualified for unemployment benefits, under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5a, because he left his employment "voluntarily without good cause attributable to [the] work." We affirm.

Employed as a financial services manager by Sony Electronics (Sony) for twenty-one years, claimant elected an early retirement package and left his employment. He asserts that he chose this course because he feared imminent layoff and would have suffered a substantial economic loss if he had not taken the early retirement package. Following a hearing, the appeals examiner found from the record before him that "although the employer was in the process of downsizing, the claimant was not under the threat of imminent termination."

At the hearing, claimant asserted an apprehension on his part that his continued employment status was in jeopardy because of the employer's statements that a downsizing of staff was under way. He relied on some documentary support that, he contended, supported his fears. That documentation took the form of reports of public announcements and Sony internal communications referring to the early retirement package as "voluntary," but expressing cautions "that involuntary reductions would [also] be taking place across the organization."

The scope of appellate review of administrative agency decisions is limited. "In reviewing the factual findings made in an unemployment compensation proceeding, the test is not whether an appellate court would come to the same conclusion if the original determination was its to make, but rather whether the factfinder could reasonably so conclude on the proofs." Brady v. Board of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997) (citations omitted). In the absence of arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable action on the part of the agency, we are obliged to accept findings that are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. Ibid. See also In re Warren, 117 N.J. 295, 296-97 (1989); Public Serv. Elec. and Gas Co. v. Department of Envtl. Prot., 101 N.J. 95, 103 (1985); Self v. Board of Review, 91 N.J. 453, 459 (1982).

The agency's determination in this matter, finding claimant's departure from his employment to have been voluntary, was not only based upon a reasonable view of the facts, but it also comported with precedential interpretations and applications of the controlling statute in similar situations. See Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 218-19; Fernandez v. Board of Review, 304 N.J. Super. 603, 605 (App. Div. 1997); Trupo v. Board of Review, 268 N.J. Super. 54, 61 (App. Div. 1993).

The decision of the Board of Review is affirmed.