On appeal from the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 144,417.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted September 16, 2008
Before Judges Collester and Grall.
Richard Schlam, formerly employed by General Reproduction Products (General), appeals from a denial of unemployment compensation benefits. The Board of Review (Board) found that General terminated Schlam's employment for "misconduct connected with [his] work" and determined that he was disqualified for benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(b). That determination is supported by the record and is neither arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, we affirm with only a brief explanation. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210-11 (1997); R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).
Schlam was hired to serve as General's director of sales in October 2004. In October 2006 General's sales dropped. The owner, Dwayne Alexander, took action to improve Schlam's performance. On January 15, 2007, he gave Schlam a list of directives, which specified hours and required prior approval for appointments out of the office. Alexander asked Schlam to meet with him to discuss the directives, but Schlam did not comply. On January 9, February 2, and February 7, 2007, Schlam did not report to the office and did not have approval for appointments out of the office that would have explained his absence. He was terminated on February 14, 2007.
The foregoing evidence was adequate to support a finding that Schlam's employment was terminated because of his "misconduct connected with the work." N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(b). A "deliberate violation of the employer's rules [or] disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee" is sufficient to establish the misconduct that requires disqualification. Borowinski v. Bd. of Review, 346 N.J. Super. 242, 245 (App. Div. 2001) (quoting Beaunit Mills, Inc. v. Bd. of Review, 43 N.J. Super. 172, 183 (App. Div. 1956), certif. denied, 23 N.J. 579 (1957)). Contrary to Schlam, the Board did not err in requiring him to establish his eligibility. Ibid.
Schlam also claims that he was deprived of a fair opportunity to present his case because his request for an adjournment was denied. The record demonstrates otherwise. Notice of the June 12, 2007 hearing date was mailed on May 31, 2007. On June 6, 2007, Schlam submitted documentary evidence and a written "argument summarizing [his] position." Although the date of the hearing was not changed, the hour was rescheduled and Schlam fully participated. At the end of the hearing, Schlam was asked if he had anything to add, and he indicated that he did not.
For the reasons set forth above, we deny Schlam's motion to supplement the record and affirm.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...