On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 313,757.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued September 19, 2012 -
Before Judges Parrillo,*fn1 Sabatino and Fasciale.
Roy A. Wescott appeals from a final decision by the Board of Review (the Board), Department of Labor and Workforce Development, upholding an Appeal Tribunal's determination that his claim for unemployment benefits is invalid. We affirm.
Ace Crete Products, Inc. (Ace) employed Wescott as a laborer and then "union man" between September 2006 and June 2009. On November 14, 2010, Wescott filed a claim for unemployment benefits. A Deputy Director (Deputy) for the Division of Unemployment and Disability Insurance determined that Wescott lacked sufficient base year wages or earnings and denied the claim. Wescott appealed the Deputy's determination to the Appeal Tribunal.
The Appeal Tribunal conducted a hearing and Wescott testified that he was unemployed since he resigned from Ace in June 2009. Wescott argued that the Deputy erred by not considering his work history before 2009. The Appeal Tribunal rejected Wescott's request to consider his employment history as irrelevant. Instead, the Appeal Tribunal applied standards enunciated in N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(e)(4), which provides:
An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week eligible only if:
(4) With respect to benefit years commencing on or after January 7, 2001, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (5) of this subsection, the individual has, during his base year as defined in subsection (c) of [N.J.S.A.] 43:21-19:
(A) Established at least 20 base weeks as defined in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (t) of [N.J.S.A.] 43:21-19; or
(B) If the individual has not met the requirements of subparagraph
(A) of this paragraph (4), earned remuneration not less than an amount 1,000 times the minimum wage in effect pursuant to section 5 of P.L.1966, c.113 ([N.J.S.A.] 34:11-56a4) on October 1 of the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the benefit year commences, which amount shall be adjusted to the next higher multiple of $100 if not already a multiple thereof.
Applying this statute, the Appeal Tribunal concluded that Wescott was ineligible for benefits because he lacked sufficient base year weeks or base year wages. The Appeal Tribunal stated:
In this case, during the regular base year period (07-01-09 through 06-30-10), on the claim dated 11-4-10, [Wescott] had zero (0) base weeks and earned $0.00 in wages. During the first alternate base year period (10-01-10 through 09-30-10), [Wescott] had zero (0) base weeks and earned $0.00 in wages. During the second alternate base year period [(]01-01-10 through ...