SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 3142

- 17T3 ANIBAL MORALES, JR., Appellant,

v. BOARD OF REVIEW , DEPARTMEN T OF LABOR , and CERVINI ' S, INC. , Respondents.

Submitted January 30, 2019

– Decided April 2, 2019 Before Judges Koblitz and Currier. On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor , Docket No. 135 , 416. Anibal Morales, Jr., appellant pro se. Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jana R. DiCosmo, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent Cervini ' s , Inc. , has not filed a 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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

- 3.2 A

- 3142

- 17T3

PER CURIAM
Claimant Anibal Morales , Jr. appeals from the February 6, 2018 decision of the Board of Review (Board) finding him ineligible for unemployment benefits pur suant to N.J.S.A. 43:21

- 5(a). After a review of the contentions in light of the record and applicable principles of law, we affirm. We derive the facts from the telephonic hearing before the Appeal
Tribunal. Claimant was employed as a floater by defendant C e rvini's, Inc., an auto body design retailer

. On October 13, 2017 , claimant stated he was called
into the director of operation's offi c e and informed that other employees had
accused him of stealing body shop tools. In th e course of the discus sion,
claimant stated he placed his keys on the director ' s desk and left, explaining his
wife was ill, and he c o u l d n o t deal with the accusations. Claimant contacted the director two weeks later inquiring about the unemployment process
. He advised
he did not intend to return to work. The director testified that he called two groups of employees into his
office on October 13 , to discuss the morale in the shop and the tension among the e m ployees

. Several employees accused claimant of trying to sabotag e th e operation , by purposely slow ly it down , and stealing tools to use on body shop
work done at his house. An employee also stated that claimant was "slandering3 A

- 3142

- 17T3

the company ' s name " and " slandering [the director] personally ." The employee
further accused claimant of " go i ng up to employees, handing them business cards, and [saying] , ' Here, call this number, you know, t his job is

. . . hiring if you don ' t want to work here. ' "
When th e director asked claimant about the accusations , he denied them.
The direct or s t at ed : "[Cla i man t ] took his keys off his key ring, placed them down

on m y desk and simply stated, ' Y ou know, I

. . . have too much on my m ind. I

can ' t handle this. I got to go , '

. . . a nd [ claimant ] walked out. " The director
advised he did not inten d to fire claimant du r ing that meeting. Claimant submitted a claim for unemployment benefits. The Deputy Director of Unemployment Insurance (Deputy) determined that claimant had left work voluntarily, disqualifying him for benefits. Following claimant ' s a ppeal of the determination, a telephonic hearing was conducted before the Appeal Tribunal. The appeals examiner noted :

claimant resigned without affording the employer an opportunity to investigate the accusati o ns, which were subsequently found to be bas ed on hearsay. T he claimant made no attempt to substan t i a te his complain t s a b out the other workers , or to preserve his [twenty]

- year work history. Ther e fore, the claimant left work v olunta r ily without good cause attributa b le to the work, and is disqualified for benefits

. . . in accordance with N.J.S.A. 43:21

- 5(a).4 A

- 3142

- 17T3

The Board affirmed the Appeal Tribunal ' s decision. On appeal, claimant contends he left his job due to a hostile work environment, and the Appeal Tribunal and Board failed to undertake thorough investigations. We are mindful that our review of administrative agency decisions is limited. We will not disturb an agency ' s action unless it was clearly "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." Brady v. Bd. of Review , 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997).
N.J.S.A. 43:21

- 5(a) provides that an employee who "has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work" is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits. " Under this section, the threshold quest ion is whether an applicant for unemployment compensation benefits left his job ' voluntarily. ' " Lord v. Bd. of Review , 425 N.J. Super. 187, 190

- 91 (App. Div. 2012). An employee has left work "voluntarily" within the meaning of the statute "only if 'the d ecision whether to go or to stay lay at the time with the
worker alone.'" Id. at 191 (quoting Campbell Soup Co. v. Bd. of Review , 13 N.J. 431, 435 (1953)). If the applicant leaves voluntarily "[he or she] is eligible for unemployment compensation benefit s only if that separation was for ' good cause attributable to [the] work. ' " Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A. 43:21

- 5(a) ) ; see also Utley v. Bd. of Review , 194 N.J. 534, 544 (2008).5 A

- 3142

- 17T3

Here, claimant did not present any evidence before the Appeal Tribunal
that demonstrated continued incide nt s of physical or verbal abuse o r harassment by his employer to satis f y good cause for voluntarily leaving th e work. Mullarney v. Bd. of Review , 343 N.J. Super. 401 (App. Div. 2001) (explaining
it was the claimant ' s burden to provide the requisite proof); see also Domenico
v. Bd. of Review , 192 N.J. Super. 284, 288 (App. Div. 1983) ("[I]t is the employee's responsibility to do what is necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed.").
In th e midst of a meeting with the director and other employees , claimant
made a d e cision to leave the job. He advised that he could not "deal" with the accusations made by other employees because he had personal is s ues on his
mind. In laying his keys on the desk and tel l ing his employer he couldn ' t "handle it anymore , " claimant vol untarily left the job. He did not r eturn to the workplace

or cont act his employer until two weeks later when he inquired about unemployment benefits. Even then, claimant advised he did not intend to return

to work. See Fennell v. Bd. of Review , 297 N.J. Super. 319, 322 (App. Div. 1997) ("Causes personal to the claimant and not attributable to the work come within the disqualification language of the statute.").
Affirmed.