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.

Edwin Galindez v. Board of Review

January 11, 2012

EDWIN GALINDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND SDH EDUCATION EAST, LLC, RESPONDENTS.



On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 286,603.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted September 28, 2011

Before Judges Fuentes and Graves.

Claimant Edwin Galindez (Galindez) appeals from an adverse determination of the Board of Review (Board). The Board affirmed a decision by the Appeal Tribunal, which determined that Galindez was disqualified for unemployment benefits from May 23, 2010, through July 3, 2010, because he was not "actively seeking work" during that period as required by N.J.S.A. 43:21- 4(c)(1). We affirm.

The relevant facts regarding Galindez's employment were developed during the Appeal Tribunal hearing on July 10, 2010. Galindez testified that during the school year, he is employed on a full-time basis as a supervisor for the food service department of William Paterson College. According to Galindez he was laid off on May 10, 2010, because there was no work available during the summer recess. He expected to return to work at the college in September. Galindez also testified as follows:*fn1

EXAMINER: Okay. So, let me just go over my notes with you to make sure I'm on the same page. It's my understanding that your last full-time position was with William Paterson College. You worked full-time as a Nighttime Supervisor for the food service department. You began January, 2009. Your last day of work was May 15, 2010. You expect to return to work for this college the first week in September, 2010?

CLAIMANT: That is correct.

EXAMINER: Okay. Have you contacted any new employers since May 22nd?

CLAIMANT: No. I've searched, you know, with family members and stuff like that, to see if they had any . . . anything going on, but, you know, none of them have anything going on. I have family members that are in different businesses. At the YMCA, I have personally, if there was any work available to members that I know . . . verbally, you know, and none of them have anything available, everybody's going through a crunch.

EXAMINER: Okay. So, your job search has consisted of asking family and friends?

CLAIMANT: That is correct.

In a decision mailed on July 12, 2010, the Appeal Tribunal denied Galindez's claim for benefits from May 23, 2010, through July 3, 2010, because he was not "actively seeking work." On September 4, 2010, the Board affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal. The Board's findings included the following:

We agree with the Opinion of the Appeal Tribunal for the reasons set forth therein. Additionally, upon appeal to the Board of Review, the claimant submitted copies of business cards purporting to be job contacts made during the period in question. The claimant's contention, that he was actively seeking work, is in direct conflict with his own sworn testimony ...


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.