ROGER C. JASIAK, Appellant,
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and BAYSHORE FITNESS AND WELLNESS CENTER OF OLD BRIDGE, L.L.C., Respondents.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued August 21, 2013
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 349, 212.
Roger C. Jasiak, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Christopher J. Hamner, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Board of Review (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Hamner, on the brief).
Respondent Bayshore Fitness and Wellness Center, L.L.C. has not filed a brief.
Before Judges Waugh and Haas.
Appellant Roger C. Jasiak appeals from the May 31, 2012 decision of the Board of Review (Board) affirming a decision of the Appeal Tribunal that he was disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) because he left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. We affirm.
Appellant was employed by Bayshore Fitness and Wellness Center, L.L.C. (Bayshore) as a certified personal trainer from July 2005 until July 13, 2011. As a condition of his employment, appellant was required to hold a personal training certification issued by the International Fitness Association.
Appellant obtained the required certification when he began his employment and he had renewed it on two prior occasions. However, he let the certification expire in May 2009. He did not take the required certification test at that time and he did not renew the license. Appellant testified he forgot to renew the certificate and alleged the managing company that operated Bayshore in 2009 failed to remind him to renew it. Bayshoredid not discover that appellant was not certified until July 13, 2011, when it terminated appellant's employment.
Appellant then filed an application for unemployment benefits, which was denied by the Director on the ground that appellant had been discharged for misconduct related to his work. Appellant appealed and the Appeal Tribunal affirmed the denial of benefits, but that, by failing to maintain the required certification, appellant left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. The Board affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's determination.
This appeal followed. Before us, appellant contends the Board erred in finding he was disqualified for benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). We disagree.
Our review of an administrative agency decision is limited. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). "'[I]n reviewing the factual findings made in an unemployment compensation proceeding, the test is not whether [we] would come to the same conclusion if the original determination was [ours] to make, but rather whether the factfinder could reasonably so conclude upon the proofs.'" Ibid. (quoting Charatan v. Bd. of Review, 200 N.J.Super. 74, 79 (App. Div. 1985)). "If the Board's factual findings are supported 'by sufficient credible evidence, [we] are obliged to accept them.'" Ibid. (quoting Self v. Bd. of ...