MARIA J. CHINCHILLA VARGAS v. BOARD OF REVIEW

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

MARIA J. CHINCHILLA VARGAS,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW and RISING SUN

HOTELS OF NEW JERSEY, LLC,

Respondents.

________________________________

January 7, 2014

Submitted October 2, 2013 Decided

Before Judges Grall and Waugh.

On appeal from the Board of Review,

Department of Labor, Docket No. 311,411.

Maria J. Chinchilla Vargas, appellant pro se.

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General,

attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher M. Kurek, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Respondent Rising Sun Hotels has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Maria J. Chinchilla Vargas was formerly an employee of Rising Sun Hotels of New Jersey, LLC, also known as Hampton Inn. Vargas appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review of the Department of Labor denying her application for benefits under the unemployment compensation law, N.J.S.A. 43:21-1

to -71. The Board agreed with and upheld the Appeal Tribunal's determination that Vargas was ineligible because she left work voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the work. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). Because the Board's decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole and not arbitrary or capricious, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the Board in its decision of August 17, 2011. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 203, 212-14 (1997); R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

Vargas worked in the laundry room. On Friday, October 1, 2010, Vargas was having problems with her co-workers who were not folding the laundry as she had taught them and she had a headache. She went to the manager, and he told her to take some of her time, go home and not come back until Monday, when they would talk about her problems.

Vargas returned to work on Monday, October 4, with all of her uniforms. Her boss was not there, and his assistant did not know anything about his agreeing to speak with her. Although Vargas admitted that the assistant told her she could come back the next day to talk to the manager, because he had told her not to come back until Monday and was not there, Vargas concluded that she did not have a job anymore and signed a letter of resignation because she thought that there was nothing else she could do.

According to the assistant, Vargas said she was quitting because she could not get along with the other two women working in the laundry. Despite the assistant manager's efforts to dissuade her and her suggestion that Vargas talk to the manager, Vargas did not change her mind and signed the resignation.

This record provides ample support for the agency's decision. Vargas failed to meet her burden of showing that her disagreement with her co-workers and her employers' response either alone or collectively justified her voluntary decision to leave her employment. "A claimant has the responsibility to do whatever is necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed." Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 214 (internal quotation marks omitted). And a "test of ordinary common sense and prudence must be utilized to determine whether an employee's decision to leave work constitutes good cause." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Given that Vargas was invited to return the next day to speak with the manager, her decision to resign was wholly inconsistent with her "responsibility to do whatever is necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed." Id. at 214-15 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Affirmed.