May 30, 2007
KATHLEEN FAIRLEY, APPELLANT,
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND MANPOWER INTERNATIONAL, INC., RESPONDENTS.
On appeal from a final decision of the Board of Review.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted May 16, 2007
Before Judges Winkelstein and Baxter.
Appellant, Kathleen Fairley, appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review on April 27, 2006, affirming the March 13, 2006 decision of the Appeal Tribunal, which found that appellant was disqualified for unemployment benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) on the grounds that she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to her work. We affirm.
Appellant worked for Manpower from May 16, 2005 to December 9, 2005, as a full-time mail handler at a Foot Locker store. At a hearing on March 3, 2006, she testified that after she learned that her daughter was being molested by her stepfather, she asked for "a layoff" from her job to take care of her personal affairs; she provided her employer with a letter of resignation. She did so because she "had to go back and forth to the police station, doctors and courts for restraining orders," and her supervisor told her that if she continued to take days off she could be fired. She believed that if she resigned she would be able to return to work once the issue was resolved. She did not request a leave of absence.
An applicant for unemployment compensation has the burden to prove entitlement to those benefits. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 218 (1997). Appellate courts have a limited role in reviewing a decision of the Board of Review. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656-57 (1999). We will only reverse if the Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or not supported by the substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Mullarney v. Bd. of Review, 343 N.J. Super. 401, 406 (App. Div. 2001).
We have carefully reviewed the record in light of the applicable law. We do not find the Board's decision to have been arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. The Board's decision was supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appeal Tribunal. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), (E).
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.