Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1727-13T4
03-17-2015
ROBERT E. BILOFSKY, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and HAROLD KOPP, Respondents.
Robert E. Bilofsky, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Anthony DiLello, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent Harold Kopp has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Haas. On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 427,281. Robert E. Bilofsky, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Anthony DiLello, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent Harold Kopp has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Claimant Robert E. Bilofsky appeals from a November 18, 2013 final decision of the Board of Review finding that he was disqualified for unemployment benefits and that he was liable to repay $2796 in benefits which he had already received. Because the Board's decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record, we affirm.
Claimant was employed as a telemarketer for a company that installed solar panels on residential dwellings. The Deputy initially determined that claimant was disqualified for benefits because he left work voluntarily. Claimant appealed from that decision and, after a hearing at which the employer did not appear, Appeals Examiner Rivera-Pacheco determined that claimant's employer had laid him off because, despite his best efforts, he was not able to produce enough "quality leads." That is, he was not finding enough customers who would actually purchase the solar panels. The Examiner found that claimant was qualified to receive unemployment benefits.
Thereafter, the employer wrote to the Board, explaining that he had been unable to participate in the hearing due to a business-related emergency. The Board accepted that explanation and remanded the case to the same Appeals Examiner for a new hearing at which the employer and claimant would both participate. After listening to both sides, Appeals Examiner Rivera-Pacheco found the employer's testimony more credible than claimant's testimony. She credited the employer's explanation that claimant left the job voluntarily after an argument in which the employer refused to give him a pay raise. Based on that finding, she concluded that claimant was disqualified for benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) (voluntarily leaving a job without good cause attributable to the work), and he was liable to repay the benefits he had already received. The Board rejected claimant's administrative appeal and adopted the findings of the Appeals Examiner.
On this appeal, we will not disturb the Board's decision so long as it is based on sufficient credible evidence in the record. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). We owe considerable deference to the agency's factual findings, especially when they are based on credibility determinations. See Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965). Having reviewed the record we find no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Appeals Examiner. In light of her factual findings, which the Board adopted, the Board's decision is legally correct. See DeSantis v. Bd. of Review, 149 N.J. Super. 35, 38 (App. Div. 1977) (for purposes of N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), dissatisfaction over failure to receive a pay raise is not good cause for leaving a job).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION