Preview:

a5635-06.opn.html
N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). On appeal, Harris argues: "> Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5635-06T35635-06T3
JOHN L. HARRIS,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
and EFK GROUP, LLC,
Respondents.
Submitted September 2, 2009 - Decided
Before Judges Payne and Waugh.
On appeal from a Final Decision of the
Board of Review, Department of Labor,
Docket No. 40,900.
John L. Harris, appellant pro se.
Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney
for respondent Board of Review, Department
of Labor (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Brady Montalbano Connaughton, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
Respondent EFK Group, LLC, has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Claimant, John L. Harris, appeals from the final decision of the Board of Review denying his claim for unemployment
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a5635-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 8:04:57 PM]




a5635-06.opn.html
insurance benefits on the ground that he left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. 152 N.J.
197, 218 (1997). The Appeal Tribunals and Board of Review determined that the burden was unmet. When
reviewing those determinations, we must give deference to the factual findings of the administrative agency.
Doering v. Bd. of Review, 203 N.J. Super. 241, 245 (App. Div. 1985). Further, we may reverse the administrative
decision only if we find it to have been "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable" or "not supported by substantial
credible evidence in the record." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). "The test of our judicial
review is 'not whether we would come to the same conclusion if the original determination was ours to make, but
rather whether the fact-finder could reasonably so conclude upon the proofs.'" Zielenski v. Bd. of Review, 85 N.J.
Super. 46, 54 (App. Div. 1964) (quoting Morgan v. Bd. of Review, 77 N.J. Super. 209, 213 (App. Div. 1962)).
In the present case, we find a sufficient legal and factual basis in the record for the administrative determination
that Harris was not qualified to receive benefits. Although "good cause" is not statutorily defined, applicable
regulations provide that it is "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." N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(b). Here, it was anticipated that
Harris would devote half of his time to servicing clients and half to new business, for which he would receive a
fifteen percent commission, thereby supplementing his $50,000 salary. Harris claims that the client management
duties assigned to him precluded the business development that he anticipated, in accordance with contract,
would occupy fifty percent of his time. However, Kubacki testified that Harris had never attempted to perform
business development, and the Appeal Examiner was entitled to credit her testimony. Moreover, no explanation
exists in the record for why Harris did not utilize the time previously spent managing the business of the client that
was lost — a client that was stated to constitute Harris's largest account — on business development, thereby
righting the balance of duties set forth in his contract of employment. Accordingly, we find that the evidence
supported the conclusion that Harris's resignation was not related directly to the work, but arose from other causes.
Affirmed.
We find adequate justification in the record for Kubacki's determination not to provide commissions in
connection with existing clients or in connection with the new clients that were not procured directly by Harris.
(continued)
(continued)
10
A-5635-06T3
September 9, 2009
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a5635-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 8:04:57 PM]




a5635-06.opn.html
0x01 graphic
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a5635-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 8:04:57 PM]

Download a5635-06.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law