Bateman v. Board of Review, Dept. of Labor & Industry

• Decision Date: 21 November 1978
• Citation: 395 A.2d 250,163 N.J.Super. 518
• Parties: Martin BATEMAN, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY, State of New Jersey, and United States Postal Service, Respondents.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 518

163 N.J.Super. 518

395 A.2d 250

Martin BATEMAN, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY, State of

New Jersey, and United States Postal Service, Respondents.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Submitted Nov. 6, 1978.

Decided Nov. 21, 1978.

Michael R. Bateman, Lakewood, for appellant.

John J. Degnan, Atty. Gen., for respondent, Bd. of Review, Dept. of Labor and Industry (Michael S. Bokar, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel; Ivan J. Punchatz, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the statement in lieu of brief).

Donald J. Volkert, Jr., Chief of Civ. Div., Asst. U.S. Atty., for respondent, U.S. Postal Service (Mary Catherine Cuff, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Anthony W. DuComb, Asst. Regional Labor Counsel, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel).

Before Judges CONFORD and PRESSLER.

PER CURIAM.

Claimant was denied unemployment compensation benefits by a deputy examiner, and, on review, by both the Appeal Tribunal and the Board of Review. Hence this appeal.

Claimant Martin Bateman had been employed with the Railway Mail Service, a branch of the U.S. Post Office, for 35 years. He worked as a mail train foreman on the New York City-Washington, D.C. run. During that time the 6,000 railway post offices were reduced to one and claimant expected that his unit also would be phased out. That event ultimately occurred a year after he retired.

In 1947 claimant decided to move his family to Lakewood, New Jersey, a two-hour commute to New York City, the starting point of his run. Sometime during 1971 his work schedule was changed and his run commenced in Washington. Thus, rather than beginning and ending his tour in New York City, he had two deadhead runs each work period: one from New York to Washington at the beginning and one from Washington at the end. Each work period consisted of a two-day tour. Thus, five hours normally were required for claimant to get from home to the origin of each work tour, and a similar period to return home. Claimant maintained that schedule from 1971 until he retired on July 9, 1976.

Claimant was eligible for retirement in 1971. He testified that at that time he could also have transferred to a stationary unit closer to home but only with a resulting loss of pay, grade, seniority and title. He said he therefore chose to continue in his job, hoping that it would be phased out; he would then have been entitled to transfer to another postoffice job without any of the above losses. When claimant finally put in for retirement, his personnel form showed: "Optional retirement: reason, age and service."

The Appeal Tribunal found that claimant left work for personal reasons, I. e., "voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work as the working conditions remained the same during the last five years of his employment."...