Opinion ID: 1530759
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Imminence

Text: Claimants bear the burden of proof to establish their right to unemployment benefits. Zielenski, supra, 85 N.J. Super. at 51, 203 A. 2d 635; DiMicele v. General Motors Corp., 51 N.J. Super. 167, 171, 143 A. 2d 799 (App.Div. 1958), aff'd, 29 N.J. 427, 149 A. 2d 223 (1959). Furthermore, when an employee leaves work voluntarily, he bears the burden to prove he did so with good cause attributable to work. Zielenski, supra, 85 N.J. Super. at 52, 203 A. 2d 635; Goebelbecker, supra, 53 N.J. Super. at 59, 146 A. 2d 488. Claimants contend that the Trenton management's statements demonstrate that their layoffs were imminent or, alternatively, that GM wanted the workers to believe their layoffs were imminent. The management notices, however, indicate only that the plant was anticipated to be closed by the end of 1993; they do not specifically target particular employees. The workers were notified that the closing of the plant was an extensive, complicated process that could not take place quickly. Based on the projected timeline and claimants' bumping rights due to seniority, claimants would have been afforded a substantial amount of time to continue working at the Trenton plant. Those contractual seniority rights in addition to transfer rights undermine the finding that claimants' layoffs were indeed imminent. Furthermore, the notices do not establish a definite closing date, and therefore, do not support claimants' contention that their layoffs were imminent. Based upon its own supplemental hearing and its expertise in the employment field, the Board determined that claimants here did not elect early retirement in lieu of imminent layoff. While faced with a tough decision, claimants ultimately made a personal one to accept the retirement package. There is no dispute that claimants took early retirement more than four weeks before any layoffs began. Although claimants' counsel argues that such a conclusion is made with the benefit of hindsight, it was clear even before March 1, 1993 that, according to the tentative closing schedule, claimants would be terminated at the earliest in September 1993. No definite closing date was ever established. Based on that timeline and claimants' level of seniority, they could have continued to work for several months. While claimants may have had a subjective fear of layoff, such fear was not based upon definitive objective facts. Trupo, supra, 268 N.J. Super. at 61, 632 A. 2d 852; see also In re Astrom, supra, 362 So. 2d at 315 (holding in a similar situation that impending layoffs were not imminent although [t]here was certainty of the eventual lay off [because] work was available at the time that the claimants elected to accept the benefits offered for early retirement).