On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 186,038.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted August 25, 2009
Before Judges Miniman and Simonelli.
Appellant Dorothy M. Bogart (Bogart) appeals from the decision of the Board of Review affirming the decision of the Appeal Tribunal that she was indefinitely disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits because she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work. We affirm.
The following facts are summarized from the record. Bogart, a Delaware resident, previously worked as a full-time pharmacy technician with Kurland Pharmacy, located in New Jersey. Respondent Acme Markets, Inc. (Acme) purchased Kurland Pharmacy. On April 9, 2007, Bogart began her employment with Acme as a part-time pharmacy technician.
After beginning her employment with Acme, Bogart received initial computer training; however despite such training, Bogart was unable to understand the computer system. Bogart did not request further computer training, and she was unwilling to attend a computer training class beginning on March 27, 2008.
Bogart resigned on April 12, 2008. At the time of her resignation, she was not in danger of termination, continuing work as a part-time pharmacy technician was available for her, and she did not apply for any other positions that were available at the same salary.
Bogart applied for unemployment benefits on April 13, 2008. A deputy claims examiner found her ineligible for benefits, finding that she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work.
Bogart appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, contending that she was unable to perform her pharmacy technician duties because she did not understand the computer system. However, testimony at the hearing before the deputy claims examiner indicated that Bogart preferred not to travel to New Jersey for a part-time job, and that she desired to work closer to her home in Delaware. Acme had no pharmacy technician positions available in a store closer to Bogart's home.
The Appeal Tribunal affirmed, concluding that although Bogart claimed that she left her employment due to her inability to grasp the skills required to use the computer, her employer did not discharge her or inform her that she might be discharged for lack of computer skills. The Appeals Tribunal also concluded that Bogart's "leaving of work because she wanted to transfer to a location nearer her home is a personal one."
The Board affirmed. This appeal followed. On appeal, Bogart contends for the first time that she left her employment in order to obtain a better position, and that she expected to work full-time and was only provided part-time employment.
We will not consider questions or issues not properly presented below when an opportunity for such a presentation is available unless the questions so raised on appeal relate to jurisdiction or concern matters of great public interest.
Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) (quoting Reynolds Offset Co., Inc. v. Summer, 58 N.J. Super. 542, 548 (App. Div. 1959), certif. denied, 31 N.J. 554 (1960)); see also State v. Arthur, 184 N.J. 307, 327 (2005). We also will not consider claims raised outside the record. R. 2:5-4. Because Bogart's newly-raised contentions do not relate to jurisdiction or ...