On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 139,909.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Coburn and Chambers.
In this unemployment compensation case, Charles J. Jameson appeals from an adverse decision by the Board of Review. We affirm.
Jameson testified that he worked in sales for Father & Son Moving and Storage of NJ, Inc. ("F & S") from September 1993 until October 11, 2006. Around noon on October 11, F & S's owner, Frank Russo, called and directed him to go a customer's home in Union. F & S was going to pick up the customer's property the next day for a move to Georgia. Jameson told Russo that he had been at the customer's house twice. Russo insisted on a third visit for the purpose of estimating a portion of the job that had not yet been done, adding that "if you don't like the way I do things, then leave." Jameson refused to comply, left work, and has not returned. His employer testified that he would have been welcomed back provided he was willing to follow the rules.
After the Deputy of the Division of Unemployment Insurance ruled against Jameson on the ground that he left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to his work, Jameson appealed. The Appeal Tribunal found as a fact that Jameson "was discharged because he refused to return to a customer's home to perform a visual estimate of a storage facility." Without further explanation, the Appeal Tribunal found in Jameson's favor on the ground that he "did not leave the job voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work."
F & S appealed to the Board of Review, which made the following findings of fact:
The claimant was employed in sales, from 1993 through October 11, 2006, when he opted to leave the job after the employer gave him the choice of following company rules or leaving.
The claimant's duties included pricing jobs based on the weight of items to be moved. The claimant was aware that the employer required the claimant to visually inspect all storage units before he quoted a price for the job. On 10/11/06, the owner asked the claimant if he had visually inspected a job that was scheduled for the following day. The claimant admitted that his estimate for moving the contents of this storage unit was based on an itemized list given to him by the customer. The employer directed the claimant to make a visual inspection of the unit. When the claimant refused to do so, the employer informed the claimant that he could follow the rules or leave the job. The claimant left the work because he did not understand why the employer would not accept the customer's word.
Applying N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), the Board concluded that Jameson chose to leave when he could have stayed at work, and that this voluntary separation resulted in Jameson being disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. On appeal to us, Jameson offers the following argument: "Claimant was subjected to verbal abuse and harassment by his employer and as a result of his refusal to accept further and continued abuse was fired from his position . . . without due cause."
The record contains no evidence on which a reasonable fact- finder could have concluded that this case involved any form of verbal abuse or harassment. Since the Board applied the correct principle of law, N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), and since its findings of fact are fully supported by the record, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), we are obliged to affirm.