CRYSTAL L. TOTH, Appellant,
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and PARACLETE CLEANING, Respondents.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted December 19, 2012
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 306, 391.
Law Office of William J. Courtney, L.L.C., attorneys for appellant (William J. Courtney, of counsel; Brian W. DeRosa, on the briefs).
Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; George N. Cohen, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs).
Respondent Paraclete Cleaning has not filed a brief.
Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Nugent.
Appellant, Crystal L. Toth, appeals from the final agency decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor, affirming an appeal tribunal's decision disqualifying her for unemployment benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) because she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to work. We affirm.
Appellant was employed full-time by Federal Insurance Company until she was terminated from that position in August, 2009. She was also employed part-time by respondent Paraclete Cleaning Service from March 12, 2007 to January 18, 2010, when she resigned. When her full-time employment was terminated by Federal Insurance Company, she filed for and received unemployment compensation benefits, even though she was working part-time for Paraclete.
On August 29, 2010, eight months after resigning from her part-time position with Paraclete, appellant filed a second claim for unemployment compensation benefits (the Paraclete claim). The Division of Unemployment Compensation denied the Paraclete claim on the ground that she had left Paraclete voluntarily without good cause attributable to her work. She appealed to the Appeal Tribunal.
According to her testimony before the Appeal Tribunal, appellant resigned because she felt she could no longer work for Paraclete's owner, Dennis Chiselko, who had been complaining to her daily about her job performance. Paraclete was a cleaning company owned by Chiselko, who employed four part-time workers to clean a tennis facility and an office building. Chiselko's complaints became an issue for appellant within the last year of her employment. Appellant worked Monday through Friday, sometimes Saturday and Sunday, and Chiselko had begun to telephone her daily to complain about her performance. She felt his complaints were unfair. For example, although Chiselko knew carpet stains in one building were "unremovable, " he nevertheless complained about her not removing them. He also complained about dust and cobwebs in certain areas behind computers, and about fingerprints on windows. According to appellant,
it was every single day that he was telling me something was wrong and when I told him things were completed, he would then tell me they were not completed when I know that I definitely did them and he would basically tell me that I was lying and that they were not done.
The day before appellant resigned, Chiselko telephoned and told her about things that had not been completed correctly. He began to yell at her, and though she tried to defend herself during a moment of silence, he told her to shut up, to stop lying to him, and that he did not respect her as a person or an employee. Appellant went to work that evening and ...