Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pindar v. Board of Review

April 30, 2008

MILING PINDAR, APPELLANT,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND SECURE FREIGHT SEAL, INC., USA, D/B/A CLASSIC F.A. PACKERS & SHIPPERS, RESPONDENTS.



On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 115,023.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted April 15, 2008

Before Judges Yannotti and LeWinn.

Appellant Miling Pindar appeals from a final determination of the Board of Review (Board), dated November 22, 2006, which found that she was disqualified from unemployment benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), because she left her job voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. We affirm.

Appellant was employed by Secure Freight Seal, Inc., USA as a registrar from November 19, 2001 to April 20, 2006, when she quit her job because of dissatisfaction with the treatment that she received from her supervisor, Peter J. Barc. Appellant filed a claim for unemployment benefits, as of May 7, 2006.

On May 24, 2006, a deputy to the Director of the Division of Unemployment Insurance determined that appellant was disqualified for benefits because her reasons for leaving the job did not constitute good cause attributable to the work. The deputy found that appellant left her job voluntarily because she believed that her supervisor's criticism of her job performance was unduly severe. The deputy found, however, that the employer's criticism was reasonable.

Appellant sought review of the deputy's determination by the Appeal Tribunal, which conducted a telephone hearing in the matter on June 22, 2006. Appellant testified that she left her job because she "felt that [she] needed to leave because [she] kept having altercations with" Barc. Appellant said that she and Barc "had a lot of verbal disagreements." She stated that she did not like the way that Barc addressed her. At times, Barc would yell at her or use obscenities. She said that she felt that Barc "was condescending at times" and she did not "want to keep going through that because it was emotional for [her]."

Appellant was asked to describe the "last issue that caused" her to quit. She testified that on April 20, 2006, there was no milk in the office, and she asked a co-worker to go to the store because she could not leave. She stated that the incident "was just a silly little thing but it was blown up out of proportion." Appellant said that Barc called her on the phone and yelled at her. Barc told her that he was "sick and tired of having people go to the store."

According to appellant, Barc was "very mean about it." Appellant testified that, after she got off the phone, she said that she was "not going to put up with getting yelled at over milk." Appellant went to Barc's office, knocked on the door, gave him her radio and keys, and quit. The appeals examiner asked appellant why she needed the milk. Appellant replied that she "wanted to have tea that morning." She explained, however, that the milk was used by others in the office for coffee or cereal.

Appellant further testified that she had other verbal altercations with Barc. According to appellant, if Barc was unhappy, he would yell at anyone "in the vicinity[.]" Appellant said that she did not think anyone should be yelled at in the workplace and it was "very unprofessional."

Appellant also recounted an incident in the warehouse that occurred on February 21, 2006. Appellant testified that Barc became angry about the manner in which empty crates were being used. He called appellant and another employee into the warehouse and "began to yell about using crates." Appellant said that Barc "slammed" the crates around the warehouse. One crate was on a dolly and it "nudged" appellant in the leg. Appellant stated that she was not hurt but she was upset by the incident.

Appellant also stated that a few days prior to "the milk incident," she was taking inventory. Barc became angry because his tape measure broke and he threw it out of the truck. The tape measure hit appellant on the foot but she was not hurt. Barc said that he was sorry but appellant asserted that this was "the kind of anger this man ha[s]" and it upset her "to be around that[.]"

Barc testified that on April 20, 2006, appellant noticed that there was no milk in the refrigerator and she asked a senior staff member to go get her milk for her tea. Barc said that the employee was uncomfortable with the request because "he knew he was on the clock." Barc called appellant and told her that she was not to send senior staff for milk ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.