SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2352-18T1

JEFFREY A. PEREZ,

Appellant,

v. 

BOARD OF REVIEW,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

and FAIRFIELD GOURMET

FOOD CORPORATION,

Respondents.

__________________________

Submitted December 4, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Haas and Enright.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of 

Labor, Docket No. 162,471.

Jeffrey A. Perez, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Board of Review (Donna Sue Arons, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Aimee Blenner, 

Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

December 20, 2019
2

A-2352-18T1

Respondent Fairfield Gourmet Food Corp. has not filed 

a brief.

PER CURIAM 

Appellant Jeffrey Perez appeals from the December 10, 2018 final 

decision of the Board of Review (Board) affirming the determination of the 

Appeal Tribunal, which disqualified Perez from receiving benefits as of 

February 11, 2018, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). The Board also affirmed 

the decision of the Appeal Tribunal holding Perez liable for a benefits refund in 

the sum of $270. We affirm.

Perez worked for Fairfield Gourmet Food Corporation (Fairfield) as a 

driver's helper from September 27, 2017 through February 14, 2018. Before 

Perez was terminated from Fairfield, he reported his employer to the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), claiming he was 

operating certain machinery without having the required license. Perez did not 

advise Fairfield that he reported the employer to OSHA. 

After Perez was injured on the job, he requested several days off from 

work in January 2018. He returned to work on February 5, 2018 and worked

until February 14, 2018, after which Fairfield claims he stopped reporting for 

work. Once Perez ceased working, he was told by his manager to turn in his 

uniform and pick up his last paycheck. 
3

A-2352-18T1

Perez filed for unemployment benefits in August 2018 and received 

benefits totaling $270. On September 24, 2018, a Deputy of the Division of 

Unemployment Insurance mailed a redetermination to Perez imposing a 

disqualification for benefits as of February 11, 2018, finding that he left work 

voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work. Perez appealed from 

this redetermination. 

During his Appeals Tribunal hearing, Perez's former manager testified he 

was unaware Perez reported the company to OSHA. When asked if he had "any 

intention of letting [Perez] go," the manager answered, "[n]o." The manager 

also testified Perez was terminated "[b]ecause of not showing . . . . his last day 

was February 14th that he showed up at work." The Appeal Tribunal found 

Perez was disqualified for benefits as of February 11, 2018, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 

43:21-5(a) and that he had to refund the benefits he received, pursuant to 

N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d). The Board affirmed the Tribunal's decision on December 

10, 2018. 

On appeal, Perez claims he was fired from his job without justification 

and is entitled to unemployment benefits. After careful consideration of Perez's 

contentions and a thorough review of the record, we are satisfied there is 
4

A-2352-18T1

adequate, substantial and credible evidence to support the Board's 

determination. 

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 

Review, 91 N.J. 453, 459, (1982)). We also give due regard to the agency's 

credibility findings. Logan v. Bd. of Review, 299 N.J. Super. 346, 348 (App. 

Div. 1997). "Unless . . . the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable, the agency's ruling should not be disturbed." Brady, 152 N.J. at 

210.

"The underlying purpose of the Unemployment Compensation Law 'is to 

provide some income for the worker earning nothing because he is out of work 

through no fault or act of his own.'" Futterman v. Bd. of Review, 421 N.J. Super. 
5

A-2352-18T1

281, 288 (App. Div. 2011) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Brady, 152 N.J. at 212). 

A person is disqualified for benefits: 

For 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 and works eight weeks in 

employment . . . .

[N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a).]

An employee who leaves work voluntarily has the burden of proving that 

he or she "did so with good cause attributable to work." Brady, 152 N.J. at 218; 

N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(c). "While the statute does not define 'good cause,' our courts 

have construed the statute to mean 'cause sufficient to justify an employee's 

voluntarily leaving the ranks of the employed and joining the ranks of the 

unemployed.'" Domenico v. Bd. of Review, 192 N.J. Super. 284, 287 (App. Div. 

1983) (quoting Condo v. Bd. of Review, 158 N.J. Super. 172, 174 (App. Div. 

1978)). N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(b) defines "good cause attributable to such work" 

as "a reason related directly to the individual's employment, which was so 

compelling as to give the individual no choice but to leave the employment." 

An employee who leaves work for good, but personal, reasons is not 

deemed to have left work voluntarily with good cause. Brady, 152 N.J. at 213; 

Self, 91 N.J. at 457; Rider Coll. v. Bd. of Review, 167 N.J. Super. 42, 47-8 (App. 
6

A-2352-18T1

Div. 1979). "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, 192 N.J. Super. at 288 (quoting Medwick v. Bd. 

of Review, 69 N.J. Super. 338, 345 (App. Div. 1961)). "The decision to leave 

employment must be compelled by real, substantial and reasonable 

circumstances . . . attributable to the work." Shuster v. Bd. of Review, 396 N.J. 

Super. 240, 244-45 (App. Div. 2007) (quoting Fernandez v. Bd. of Review, 304 

N.J. Super. 603, 606 (App. Div. 1997)). "[I]t is the employee's responsibility to 

do what is necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed." Domenico, 

192 N.J. Super. at 288. 

Guided by these principles, we perceive no basis to disturb the Board's 

finding. 

Affirmed.