Brady v. Board of Review
| Decision Date | 22 December 1997 |
| Citation | 704 A.2d 547,152 N.J. 197 |
| Parties | William F. BRADY, Jr., Sylvia Albarran, Herbert Alexander, Carmen Alicea, Frederick Allen, Beatrice Amison, Gerald Amison, Shirley G. Anderson, Joseph Andrews, Jr., Mary L. Arcamone, Mary Austin, James Bailey, Dudley Barcalow, Jose J. Beaychamps, Marietta Berenato, Josefa Bielski, Anna Bijacsko, John Black, Harold Bodden, Shirley Bottrel, Leon Boyer, Raymond Boyzath, Freddie Brimley, Herbert Brooker, James H. Browne, Robert W. Bryner, Augusta Budd, Hector G. Burgos, John E. Burris, James Caldwell, Marie Capriotti, Robert Case, Margaret Chambus, Patricia Charyak, Matteo Cipriano, Benjamin Cole, Thomas J. Coleman, Fred Como, William R. Craft, Joann Crea, Luz Cruz, Mary L. Czap, Joseph Daly, Sophie Dardzinski, Karl H. Deibler, Barbara A. Derry, Margaree Dillard, Edward Dorota, Anthony Doto, Anatol Dowbnia, David J. Downing, Charles P. Dragos, James J. Duncan, Mary F. Ealy, Kurt E. Eder, Custodia Feijo, Sylvia Ferguson, Anthony Ferrare, Juan Flores, Rafael Garcia, Lester Glascoe, Delores Glazewski, Elfriede Halko, Murray A. Halpern, Geraldine Hambley, Barbara A. Harden, Charlotte Hayden, Walter Hearns, Robert G. Hennessee, Thomas Horan, Edward Hugo, Richard Hutchinson, Vincent Immordino, Sarah C. Inniss, Jena Iorio, Bennie Isom, Andrena L. Johnson, Ronald Kasa, Dorothea Kato, Margaret M. Kennedy, John Kovach, Mariva Kuhn, Sam Lagares, Ronald Lawrence, Chang Lee, Andy Leonarski, Walter Lomax, Armand Loretucci, Jacq. Marinello, Charles B. Marks, Dolores Marlin, Margaret Mason, John McEllinney, Juan Medina, John Mellodge, Mary Merovich, Eugene J. Minich, Minerva Montero, Hector M. Morales, Minerva Morales, Cornelius Morrow, Mary A. Murphy, Carmela C. Nickels, Peter Nicoali, Stanley Olschewski, Edward J. Pallay, Ronald J. Palmieri, James S. Petrucelli, Harry Phillips, Mathew Pierre, Freya Poliziana, Arthur S. Popp, Wilfred W. Powers, Frank Prasak, Rochelle Pritchard, Giuseppe Puglisi, Carmen Quiles, Alicia Quinones, Frederick Rainer, Evelyn Ramsey, Raymond R. Rawa, Stanista |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Alan C. Stephens, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent-appellant Board of Review (Peter Verniero, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Mary C. Jacobson, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).
Laurence Reich, Newark, for respondent-appellant General Motors Corporation, Inland Fisher Guide Division (Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, attorneys).
David Tykulsker, Montclair, for claimants-respondents.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
At issue in this appeal is whether claimants, who elected to participate in an early retirement plan, "voluntarily" left work "without good cause attributable to such work," N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), thereby rendering them ineligible for unemployment benefits. Claimants are former employees of the Inland Fisher Guide Division of the General Motors Corporation (GM), located in Trenton, New Jersey (Trenton plant). In December 1992, the Trenton plant announced to its employees that GM was offering a special accelerated retirement plan for eligible employees nationwide. After receiving notice from management that GM intended to close the Trenton plant by the end of 1993, claimants accepted the early retirement plans. Subsequently, they sought and were granted unemployment compensation benefits. Although the Board of Review reversed the award of benefits, finding that claimants were disqualified under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) because they "left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work," the Appellate Division concluded that claimants established "good cause" and thus were qualified for unemployment benefits. We granted certification to both parties, 148 N.J. 462, 690 A.2d 610 (1997); 148 N.J. 463, 690 A.2d 610 (1997), and now hold that claimants are disqualified from collecting benefits.
On or about December 3, 1992, GM notified its employees that it intended to close the Trenton plant permanently by the end of 1993. A short time later, GM announced an incentive retirement program throughout the corporation as a means of shifting workers from its jobs reserve bank program to production positions vacated by those who elected early retirement. Workers in the reserve bank were those who, rather than being laid off, were placed in nonproduction positions. The impetus behind the incentive retirement program was to create openings to avoid laying off those workers from the depleting jobs bank program. The retirement initiative was offered at those GM plants nationwide with a reserve bank and was unrelated to the projected Trenton plant closing. At the time of the announcement, the Trenton plant had approximately 400 people in its reserve bank; Trenton applied for and received approval from GM corporate headquarters for 400 positions for early retirement. Approximately 386 employees, none of whom received a layoff notice, took advantage of the mutual retirement package and retired.
To be eligible for the retirement incentive, workers were required to have at least ten years of service with GM and be at least fifty years of age. Under the plan, qualified workers fell into two categories. Those between the ages of fifty and sixty-two received an early, unreduced pension; a supplemental pension that would be paid until they reached the age of sixty-two; and employer-paid lifetime comprehensive medical care. The medical coverage was subject to the governing collective bargaining agreement between GM and the United Auto Workers Union (UAW), which was periodically renegotiated upon the expiration of a governing contract. Retired employees received approximately $60 per week for each year of service. The representative claimant, who retired at the age of fifty-two with more than fifteen years of service, testified before the Appeal Tribunal that he would receive approximately $940 a month. An additional feature of the package was that there was no outside earnings limitation. Retired workers could seek employment elsewhere at any wage rate without any effect on the pension. Approximately 300 employees in that category accepted early retirement.
Under the second category, workers aged sixty-two or older received the same retirement benefits as the previous category plus $10,000 toward the purchase of a new GM car. Approximately seventy employees who chose to accept the incentive fell into that category. All employees who elected to take the retirement package were obliged to retire on February 1, 1993 or March 1, 1993. Their applications could be withdrawn at any time prior to those dates. Numerous employees who initially accepted the early retirement offer withdrew their applications before March 1, 1993.
From December 1992 until the end of February 1993, various statements about the anticipated plant closing were issued. On December 23, 1992, a "Message from the Manager" to the employees included the following:
For those of you with doubts--yes, the plant is closing. The time table by product line and who the new sources will be are being defined now. I would hope by January 15th, we would have a good firm idea on where our products are going. This will then tell us how many job opportunities are available to move with the jobs. So do not contact labor relations until at least January 18th, for relocation job opportunities with GM. We will try and keep everyone informed in the Tribune and Message from the Manager. I can only say for now for sure that we are working on the closure plan and some job opportunities will be available.
The announcement further encouraged employees not to forego the accelerated retirement plan based on speculation that the Trenton plant might remain open:
There are rumors circulating about plans and efforts to save the plant. Let me give you my opinion of what I know. Since our announcement of December 3, I have spoken to our divisional offices executives many times.
Believe me when I say that all talk about potentially keeping Trenton open is false optimism originating right from this plant. No one at our divisional executive level is actively working on a scenario that could possibly keep Trenton open. In fact, most of their calls involve giving them timing about when products will leave. I know I'm being blunt, but I know there are many people making difficult decisions regarding retirement. I would not want any rumors influencing those decisions. The worst thing anyone could do would be to turn down one of the best mutual retirement programs available because of a rumor and then later lose what is available when the plant closes.
In response to the company's December 23, 1992 Message to the Manager, the union published an undated "Special Update" to inform its members of the union's efforts to keep the plant open and of alternative job opportunities. The Special Update stated:
If our work is transferred to another GM plant the International Union will have to negotiate the number of moves we would be entitled to within the Corporation. Our members would move with full seniority...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ardan v. Bd. of Review, A–35 September Term 2016
... 231 N.J. 589 177 A.3d 768 Margo S. ARDAN, PlaintiffAppellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, Lourdes Medical Center of Burlington County, Inc., and Alliance Healthcare, DefendantsRespondents. A35 September Term 2016 077771 Supreme ... 43:212. The statute establishes "a cushion for the workers of New Jersey against the shocks and rigors of unemployment." Brady v. Bd. of Review , 152 N.J. 197, 212, 704 A.2d 547 (1997) (quoting Carpet Remnant Warehouse v. Dep't of Labor , 125 N.J. 567, 581, 593 A.2d 1177 ... ...
-
Haley v. Bd. of Review
...462 N.J.Super. 222225 A.3d 786Clarence HALEY, Appellant,v.BOARD OF REVIEW, and Garden State Laboratories, Inc., Respondents.DOCKET NO. A-4973-17T2Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.Argued October 17, ... (citing Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 212, 704 A.2d 547 (1997) ). "The basic policy of the law is advanced as well when benefits are denied in improper ... ...
-
Stein v. Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety
... ... 99 We note initially that appellate review of a final decision of an administrative agency is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194, 26 ... 341, 353, 895 A.2d 437 (2006) ; Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210, 704 A.2d 547 (1997) ; Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., ... ...
-
McClain v. Bd. of Review
... 237 N.J. 445 206 A.3d 353 Patricia J. MCCLAIN, Appellant-Respondent, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent-Appellant, and Learning Edge Academy, Inc., and Kids Choice Academy, Respondent. Cynthia M. Blake, ... Brady v. Bd. of Review , 152 N.J. 197, 210, 704 A.2d 547 (1997). In contrast, although we accord some deference to the Board's interpretation of the ... ...