EFRAIN ALVAREZ v. BOARD OF REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2173-12T4

EFRAIN ALVAREZ,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR and HORIZON LINES VESSEL,

Respondents.

_______________________________

May 23, 2014

Before Judges Reisner and Carroll.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 321,865.

Efrain Alvarez, appellant pro se.

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review, Department of Labor (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ernest Bongiovanni, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Respondent Horizon Lines Vessel has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Claimant Efrain Alvarez appeals from a December 4, 2012 final decision of the Board of Review. That decision affirmed a September 25, 2012 determination by the Appeal Tribunal that claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits for the weeks ending December 4, 2010 and December 11, 2010 and ordered claimant to refund $794 in benefits that he received for those weeks. Because the Board's decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence and is consistent with the applicable law, we affirm. R.2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

The reasons for the decision were cogently stated in the decision of the Appeal Tribunal and need not be repeated here in detail. To summarize, claimant is a merchant seaman who belongs to the Seafarers International Union of North America. Under the union's rules, union members work in cycles of seventy-nine days on a ship, followed by a period of about forty-five days off. If they bid on another job during their "off" period, they risk losing what would otherwise be a guaranteed reassignment to the ship on which they most recently worked. To avoid losing his guaranteed reassignment, claimant did not bid on other jobs during the weeks of December 4 and December 11, 2010. The Appeal Tribunal and the Board therefore concluded that he was not entitled to unemployment benefits during those weeks, because he was not "actively seeking work," which is a prerequisite for eligibility for unemployment benefits. N.J.S.A.43:21-4(c)(1). We agree with that conclusion.

Affirmed.