Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0974-13T3
04-29-2015
JOHN P. DARRAGH, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and ALPINE REFRIGERATION COMPANY, Respondents.
John P. Darragh, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review, Department of Labor (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Peter H. Jenkins, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent Alpine Refrigeration Company has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Simonelli and Guadagno. On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 382,223. John P. Darragh, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review, Department of Labor (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Peter H. Jenkins, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent Alpine Refrigeration Company has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
John P. Darragh appeals from the determination of the Board of Review (Board) that he left work voluntarily without good cause and is disqualified for unemployment benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). We affirm.
Darragh began his full-time employment at Alpine Refrigeration Company (Alpine) in July 2010. Arthur Staloff is the owner of Alpine, which is a small, family-operated company. Darragh left Alpine on March 13, 2012 and was absent from work on March 14, 15, and 16, 2012. On March 14, 2012, Darragh called Staloff and informed him that he was not coming to work because he was attending to personal matters.
In an email exchange with Operations Manager Robin Locker, Darragh expressed his displeasure with the work ethic of certain employees, including Staloff's son. Locker sent an email in response, acknowledging Darragh's frustration with the work environment and his co-workers and questioning whether he believed that Alpine was still "a good fit" for him. Darragh stated in his reply email, "As far as the fit for now and the future, I need till Monday [March 19, 2012] to give you my answer." Locker wrote back that she was "disappointed but believe[d] this may not be the right environment anymore" for Darragh.
The emails were not provided to us but were read into the record at the hearings.
On March 19, 2012, Darragh returned to work to collect his final paycheck and tools. Staloff handed Darragh a letter that day accepting his "resignation" with regret and recommending Darragh to potential future employers based on his dependability and experience.
Darragh applied for unemployment benefits, which the Deputy Director denied, finding that Darragh left work voluntarily. A hearing was held on September 24, 2012, where Darragh alleged that he was terminated from his employment based on Locker's final email to him. The Appeal Tribunal agreed and reversed the determination of the Deputy Director. Alpine appealed to the Board, which remanded to the Appeal Tribunal.
Another hearing occurred on March 18 and 19, 2013, where Staloff testified that Darragh told him that he wanted to be laid off. In addition, Staloff testified that he was the only person at Alpine with the authority to fire another employee. Locker also testified that she lacked the authority to fire Darragh. She explained that her final email to Darragh merely reflected her personal opinion that Alpine was not the right work environment for him anymore because the changes Darragh wanted to implement were unlikely to happen.
The Appeal Tribunal found that Darragh left work voluntarily and was disqualified for benefits as of March 11, 2012. The Appeal Tribunal explained that Locker's comment about the work environment does not create an inference of termination because it was in response to Darragh's "displeasure and negative comments regarding his working conditions." The Board affirmed.
Darragh appeals, challenging the Board's determination that he left work voluntarily.
Our scope of review of an administrative agency's determination is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). The agency's determination will not be disturbed unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). Four inquires guide our analysis of the agency's action:
(1) whether the agency's decision offends the State or Federal Constitution; (2) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies; (3) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (4) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors.
[George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27 ( 1994).]
Under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), an individual is disqualified for benefits "[f]or the week in which the individual has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work, and for each week thereafter until the individual becomes reemployed . . . ." "Mere dissatisfaction with working conditions which are not shown to be abnormal or do not affect health, does not constitute good cause for leaving work voluntarily." Domenico v. Bd. of Review, 192 N.J. Super. 284, 288 (App. Div. 1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). The employee must "do what is necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed." Ibid.
We are satisfied that the record amply supports the Board's decision denying Darragh's application for unemployment benefits. The record makes clear that Darragh was dissatisfied with the work environment at Alpine and expressed displeasure with the work ethic of certain employees. Such reasons do not constitute good cause for leaving work voluntarily.
Darragh argues that he did not leave work voluntarily but was terminated. There is sufficient, credible evidence in the record to support the Appeal Tribunal's finding that Darragh was not terminated. First, Darragh expressed his desire to be laid off. Second, Locker's email about the work environment not being a good fit for Darragh was in response to his comments regarding the working conditions. Third, Locker lacked the authority to terminate Darragh. Darragh has failed to show that the Board's decision disqualifying him from benefits was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION