SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
A-1480-99T1
JOSE J. BONILLA,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR,
Respondent-Respondent,
and
ZAGO MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,
Respondent.
___________________________________
Argued February 13, 2001 - Decided March 13,
2001
Before Judges Petrella, Newman and Wells.
On appeal from a Final Decision of the Board
of Review, Department of Labor, 99-B-04658-
000-X0.
Jose J. Bonilla, appellant, argued the cause
pro se.
John C. Turi, Deputy Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent Board of Review
(John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General,
attorney; Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Mr. Turi, on the brief).
No brief was filed on behalf of respondent
Zago Manufacturing Co., Inc.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
PETRELLA, P.J.A.D.
In this appeal, claimant Jose J. Bonilla challenges a
decision by the Board of Review (Board) upholding the Appeal
Tribunal's ruling that he was not entitled to additional
unemployment benefits during training (ABT). On appeal, Bonilla
argues that he was improperly denied additional benefits because
there was a "substantial reduction" in work opportunities that
entitled him to additional benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-60 and
N.J.A.C. 12:23-5.1.
Bonilla filed a claim for unemployment benefits on January
3, 1999. He was declared eligible and received benefits for the
full twenty-six week period allowable at a weekly benefit rate of
$289. Thereafter, he filed for additional benefits under
N.J.S.A. 43:21-60.
On July 13, 1999, the Division of Unemployment Insurance
declared Bonilla ineligible for ABT under the Workforce
Development Partnership Program, on the ground that he left his
former job for a reason other than lack of work.
Bonilla was employed by Zago Manufacturing Co., Inc. in
Newark from August 16, 1996 to December 31, 1998. He claims he
suffered numerous adverse health effects from the chemical fumes
in the factory where he worked. Bonilla asserts that his
employer told him he would be assigned to a room separate from
the company floor so that he would not be exposed to the
industrial fumes. However, Bonilla testified that his employer
never took such action and that he continued to work in an
unhealthy environment where he was exposed to fumes. Bonilla
claims that he contacted the Labor Department, OSHA and other
agencies, but received no assistance.
Dr. Rafael Latorre examined Bonilla and certified that he
suffered headaches and hypertension, but that he was able to work
in places with a less chemically contaminated environment.
Bonilla claims he left his job for health reasons and because of
his doctor's recommendation that he change jobs so that he could
work in a healthier environment. He also asserts that the
company he worked for used toxic chemical solvents known to cause
various illnesses.
At the hearing before the Appeal Tribunal, Bonilla testified
that he began attending a computer graphics school in August 1999
and expected to complete the course in December 1999. The Appeal
Tribunal affirmed the determination of the Deputy, finding that
there was no substantial reduction in work opportunities at
Bonilla's former worksite and that his separation from work was
an isolated separation due to his leaving. Thus, the Appeal
Tribunal concluded that Bonilla was ineligible for additional
unemployment benefits during training under the New Jersey
Workforce Development Act (N.J.S.A. 43:21-57 et seq.). The Board
of Review affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal on the
basis of the record below.
Bonilla argues that he is entitled to additional benefits during training because he left his job for health reasons.
It is well-settled that the claimant normally has the burden of establishing entitlement to unemployment compensation. Combs v. Board of Review, 269 N.J. Super. 616, 624 (App. Div. 1994). This applies to ABT claims under N.J.S.A. 43:21-60, which provides, in pertinent part, that additional benefits shall be provided to any individual who:
a. Has received a notice of a permanent termination of employment by the individual's employer or has been laid off and is unlikely to return to his previous employment because work opportunities in the individual's job classification are impaired by a substantial reduction of employment at the worksite;***
The above statute is economically driven legislation that has the obvious purpose of enabling individuals who are economically displaced from their employment to be paid benefits while acquiring new skills to reenter a more marketable area of the economy. It is thus clear that to obtain additional benefits during training, the claimant must be fired or laid off and be unlikely to return to that job because of a "substantial reduction of employment at the worksite."
Likewise, the implementing regulation, N.J.A.C. 12:23-5.1, provides, in pertinent part, that
(a) An individual will be eligible for additional unemployment benefits during training only if the individual:
Bonilla, relying upon Rider College v. Board of Review, 167 N.J. Super. 42, 47 (App. Div. 1979), argues that he is entitled to additional benefits because he left work due to the "intolerable working conditions" at his former job, which he argues constitutes "good cause," pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). However, N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) is not at issue in this case because that section of the statute applies to disqualification from benefits for leaving employment without good cause related to the work. Bonilla was not disqualified for benefits. Indeed, he was found eligible for a full twenty-six weeks of benefits because he left work for good cause related to the work. He was simply declared ineligible for additional benefits during training because he did not qualify under N.J.S.A. 43:21-60. It is undisputed that Bonilla left his job for health reasons. Although the working conditions may have been poor, Bonilla was not fired or laid off. In addition, and more significantly, he is ineligible for additional benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-60 because there was no evidence of a "substantial reduction of employment at the worksite," that made him unlikely to return to his former job. Therefore, Bonilla was appropriately found ineligible for additional benefits.
Affirmed.