DeLorenzo v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor and Industry, A--56

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 53 N.J. 143,249 A.2d 68
• Parties: Virginia DeLORENZO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, State of New Jersey, and M & S Knitwear, Defendants-Respondents.
• Docket Number: No. A--56,A--56
• Decision Date: 20 January 1969

Page 143

53 N.J. 143 249 A.2d 68 Virginia DeLORENZO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, State of New Jersey, and M
& S Knitwear, Defendants-Respondents. No. A--56. Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued Jan. 6, 1969.
Decided Jan. 20, 1969.

Page 144

Sidney Reitman, Newark, for appellant (Irving Leuchter, Newark, of counsel, Kapelsohn, Lerner, Leuchter & Reitman, Newark, attorneys).

Edward A. Kaplan, Jersey City, for respondent Board of Review.

The opinion of the court was delivered

PER CURIAM.

We granted certification, 52 N.J. 165, 244 A.2d 297 (1968), to review a judgment [249 A.2d 69] of the Appellate Division, 100 N.J.Super. 473, 242 A.2d 640 (1968), which affirmed judgments of the Appeal Tribunal and of the Board of Review of the Division of Employment Security ordering the employee to return unemployment compensation benefits paid to her.

The employee was ill for a period of time. She did not seek or receive unemployment compensation for the period of her illness. Rather the payments here involved were for an ensuing period during which, she says, she sought to work for her employer but her services were refused. The employer, however, insisted the employee did not seek to return

Page 145

to her job but rather wanted parttime employment which he could not give her because of the economics involved. In fact she did ultimately resume her work with this employer.

The order for repayment was based upon a determination that the employee was 'disqualified' under N.J.S.A. 43:21--5(a) which provides in part that an employee is disqualified 'for the week in which he has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work, and for each week thereafter until he has earned in employment * * * at least 4 times his weekly benefit rate * * *.'

It is clear that the Deputy resolved against the employee the factual dispute recited above. Specifically, he found that she did not seek to return to work before claiming benefits and on that basis he concluded she voluntarily left her job and was therefore 'disqualified' under the section just cited. He found against her also on the separate ground that when she did seek to work again, she restricted her offer to parttime work. Upon that finding he concluded she was not 'available' for work and therefore did not meet the eligibility conditions of N.J.S.A. 43:21--4. But the Appeal Tribunal, which recited the factual...