Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3271-12T3
06-11-2014
KEITH H. COULTRAP III, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and REINERTSEN MOTORS, INC., Respondents.
Anthony P. Ambrosio, attorney for appellant. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher M. Kurek, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent Reinertsen Motors, Inc., has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Koblitz and O'Connor.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 388,264.
Anthony P. Ambrosio, attorney for appellant.
John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher M. Kurek, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Respondent Reinertsen Motors, Inc., has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Keith H. Coultrap III appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits. We affirm.
Coultrap was employed as a general manager for Reinertsen Motors (Motors) from July 2006 through April 26, 2012. On this latter date, he received an email sent to various employees from Larry Reinertsen, the guardian of Kjell Skavnes, the majority shareholder of Motors. Believing he could speak for Skavnes, Reinertsen expressed disapproval of an action taken by Coultrap, which he characterized as insubordination. Reinertsen stated that any further acts of insubordination would be grounds for termination. The email stated in pertinent part:
It has come to my attention that after I gave instructions to . . . the Office Manager, . . . [Coultrap] countermanded that instruction. Upon notifying Stephen Gilbert, . . . his suggestion [was] that [Coultrap] be immediately terminated for insubordination.Coultrap interpreted the email to mean he was terminated, and did not report to work after April 26, 2012.
Upon further reflection, and in consideration of the possibility that there may have been some misunderstanding of the full nature of the powers vested in me as Guardian, . . . I am amending my initial instruction to [the officer manager]. . . . Any further act of insubordination will be grounds for immediate termination.
Coultrap applied for but was denied unemployment benefits. The Deputy Director of the Division of Unemployment and Disability Insurance Division found Coultrap was disqualified for benefits on the basis he left Motors voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. Coultrap appealed the Deputy Director's determination but, following a telephone hearing, the Appeals Tribunal made the same finding as the Deputy Director, which was affirmed by the Board of Review.
N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) disqualifies a claimant from receiving unemployment benefits if the employee "has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work." Here, Coultrap did not have a reasonable basis to conclude from the content of the email that he was being terminated. While Reinertsen mentioned that Mr. Gilbert suggested Coultrap be terminated, Reinertsen did not do so and merely stated that if there were another act of insubordination, there would be grounds for immediate termination. Coultrap left Motors of his own accord without good cause attributable to work.
It was Coultrap's burden to establish his entitlement to collect unemployment benefits, Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 218 (1997), a burden he clearly failed to meet here. We therefore conclude that the Board's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and had adequate support in the record. See id. at 210-11.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION