Price, Haneman and Schettino. The opinion of the court was delivered by Haneman, J.A.D.
Claimant appeals, pro se , from a decision of the Board of Review, Division of Employment Security, holding her ineligible for unemployment benefits by virtue of N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(c).
The facts, as elicited from the record and on oral argument, are:
The claimant, a married woman, was employed by Western Electric Company as an inspector, at $55 per week. On April 12, 1957 she was in her sixth month of pregnancy. Under the policy of her employer she was, for that reason, required to take a leave of absence from her employment. Prior to her employment by Western Electric Company she had been employed as an elevator operator, salesgirl
and factory inspector. Between April 12, 1957 and April 26, 1957 she applied personally to the following for employment, viz. , "Bambergers" as an elevator operator; "Acme Market" as a cashier; "Kresge" as a salesgirl, and "Tung Sol" as an inspector. None of these prospective employers would hire her because of her pregnancy. On April 26, 1957 she filed a claim for unemployment benefits. Between April 26, 1957 and June 4, 1957 she answered from five to eight newspaper advertisements for employees, by telephone. From June 4, 1957 to July 8, 1957, the date of the birth of her child, she answered two such newspaper advertisements in a like manner. None of these endeavors culminated in obtaining employment. From April 26, 1957 to June 14, 1957 she reported weekly to the unemployment office and suggested on each occasion that she was able and willing to accept employment. On none of these occasions was she referred to a prospective employer. On the latter date the unemployment office communicated with her and requested her to report for work. This she refused because of the imminence of her confinement.
The Board of Review concluded that the claimant had been involuntarily separated from her employment by reason of company policy and in its opinion then found:
"In view of her insistence that she was able to work and that she was available for work in several occupations, it was incumbent on the claimant to make some consistent effort to get work. This she failed to do after she filed her claim. Her reported efforts appear to have been made not so much to obtain work as to create the appearance of having sought work. She failed to establish eligibility for benefits."
We are therefore concerned only with the question whether claimant was "actively seeking work."
N.J.S.A. 43:21-4 provides, in part:
"An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if it appears that:
(a) He has registered for work at, and thereafter continued to report at, an employment office in accordance with such regulations as the ...