SIXTO COSME v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3430-05T33430-05T3

SIXTO COSME,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR and ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ,

t/a HAIR GUILD,

Respondents.

______________________________________

 

Submitted: November 29, 2006 - Decided December 8, 2006

Before Judges A. A. Rodr guez and Sabatino.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, 90,562.

Sixto Cosme, appellant pro se.

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondents (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; George N. Cohen, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Claimant, Sixto Cosme, appeals from the Board of Review's (Board) final decision, upholding the Appeal Tribunal's determination of ineligibility for benefits. We affirm.

Claimant was employed as a hairstylist by Alberto Rodriguez t/a Hair Guild. Claimant worked from October 1995 through August 26, 2005. According to claimant, business was slow and Rodriguez told him that maybe he could come back to work when business increased. Apparently with Rodriguez's acquiescence, claimant sought unemployment compensation benefits on August 28, 2005. A deputy claims examiner determined that claimant was disqualified for benefits.

Claimant appealed. At the hearing before the Appeal Tribunal, two witnesses testified: claimant and Rodriguez. Claimant expected to return to work at Hair Guild. At the time of the hearing, claimant was looking for work in Puerto Rico. Rodriguez testified that he had a conversation with claimant, whose mother was having surgery. At that time, business at the salon was slow. According to Rodriguez, he and claimant agreed that claimant would take a temporary leave of absence. Rodriguez told claimant to take time off and return to work when there was more business. However, Rodriguez denied that claimant was laid off "or anything like that." Rodriguez acknowledged that he allowed claimant to seek unemployment benefits.

The Appeal Tribunal found that claimant had voluntarily quit his job. Therefore, it denied his claim pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(c). Claimant appealed. The Board adopted the findings of the Appeal Tribunal and upheld the ineligibility, but modified the decision to reflect that claimant was ineligible pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(m)(1)(A).

Claimant appeals to us arguing:

Claimant was laid off by employer because the employer said it was too slow. Employer told the claimant to apply for unemployment benefits. Other employees were laid off and other moves out of state.

Claimant apply for benefits in New Jersey. He move to Puerto Rico because he could not afford to pay $800.00 rent and other bills. He move to his parents house to look for a job in Puerto Rico.

The employer said that if the job gets busy he would call him back. That never happened.

Claimant is still unemployed and looking for work.

An appellate tribunal has a limited role in reviewing administrative agency decisions. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). We will reverse an agency decision "only if it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or [] [un]supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc., 100 N.J. 57, 71 (1985) (citing Gloucester County Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civ. Serv. Comm'n., 93 N.J. 384, 391 (1983)). Here, there is sufficient credible evidence in the record to uphold the findings that claimant is not entitled to benefits. He agreed to take a voluntary leave of absence without pay, therefore, his status does not come within the definition of "unemployment" set by N.J.S.A. 43:19(m)(1)(A). The final decision of the Board is affirmed.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-3430-05T3

December 8, 2006