CHRISTY E. CARBONARO v. BOARD OF REVIEW et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3816-06T33816-06T3

CHRISTY E. CARBONARO,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW and

BELLEPLAIN EMERGENCY CORPS,

Respondents.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted October 17, 2007 - Decided November 1, 2007

Before Judges Parker and R. B. Coleman.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 130,671.

Christy E. Carbonaro, appellant pro se.

Anne Milgram, 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).

PER CURIAM

Claimant appeals from a final decision rendered by the Board of Review on February 28, 2007 denying her application for extended unemployment benefits. We affirm.

During a telephone hearing before the Appeals Tribunal on December 27, 2006, claimant testified that she was "laid off as a dispatcher by Robert Beare[,] the supervisor[,]" because "there [were] too many dispatchers that they had hired in the office." Claimant was not the last person hired, however, and two people hired after her were not terminated. Claimant testified that she was given no reason for her termination, rather "they just told me I was being laid off[,] that was it. So[,] I turned everything [in] that evening and I had a receipt that I returned my uniforms." Claimant acknowledged that there was no mass layoff, nor was she told that she was laid off due to lack of work.

In this appeal, claimant argues that she "was laid-off due to no fault of her own, therefore, she should not have been disqualified for extended benefits while in training."

The Workforce Development Program provides for additional benefits during training for alternative employment when an individual "[h]as received a notice of a permanent termination of employment by the individual's employer or has been laid off and is unlikely to return to his previous employment because work opportunities in the individual's job classification are impaired by a substantial reduction of employment at the worksite . . . ." N.J.S.A. 43:21-60(a). An individual is eligible for additional employment benefits during training only if the individual "[i]s permanently separated from employment and is unlikely to return to such employment due to a substantial reduction in work opportunities in the individual's job classification or at his or her former work site . . . ." N.J.A.C. 12:23-5.1(a)2. To qualify for additional benefits during training, the individual must participate in an approved training program, that is, in a program by "a service provider approved by the Commissioner of Labor." N.J.S.A. 43:21-60(e).

Claimant received regular unemployment benefits for twenty-six weeks as a result of her termination from employment. She is not eligible for extended benefits because she was not terminated as a result of "a substantial reduction of employment at the worksite." Bonilla v. Bd. of Review, 337 N.J. Super. 612, 616 (App. Div. 2001). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the Board of Review.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3816-06T3

November 1, 2007