DeSantis v. Board of Review, Dept. of Labor and Industry
| Citation | 372 A.2d 1362,149 N.J.Super. 35 |
| Parties | Rosemary DeSANTIS, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, and Citizens United Bank, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 22 March 1977 |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Connie M. Pascale, Bridgeton, for appellant (Camden Regional Legal Services, Inc.).
Michael S. Bokar, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent Bd. of Review, Dept. of Labor and Industry, State of N.J. (William F. Hyland, Atty. Gen.).
Before Judges FRITZ, ARD and PRESSLER.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRESSLER, J.A.D.
Petitioner Rosemary DeSantis appeals from the denial by the Board of Review of the Department of Labor and Industry of her claim for unemployment compensation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21--1 Et seq.
The Supervising Appeals Examiner, whose findings and conclusions were accepted by the Board of Review, denied petitioner benefits on essentially two grounds. The first was based upon the finding that she had left her original job as a bank teller in the employ of respondent Citizens United Bank voluntarily and without good cause attributable to her work and was, therefore, disqualified for benefits by the provisions of N.J.S.A. 43:21--5(a). The second reason was based on the finding that her subsequent employment by the Bridgeton Apostolic Center (Center) did not toll the disqualification pursuant to that section of the statute because the Center itself is disqualified as an eligible employer by N.J.S.A. 43:21--19(i)(1)(D)(i). That provision excludes from eligible employment services performed
In the employ of (I) a church or convention or association of churches, or (II) an organization which is operated primarily for religious purposes and which is operated, supervised, controlled or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches.
As to the first of these, we are satisfied that the findings of the appeals examiner were based on substantial credible evidence present in the record and should, therefore, not be disturbed by us. See Jackson v. Concord Co., 54 N.J. 113, 117--118, 253 A.2d 793 (1969); Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599, 210 A.2d 753 (1965). Essentially, the appeals examiner found that petitioner left her job primarily because of her disappointment in not receiving a hoped-for raise. Although her various supervisors had promised to recommend that she be given the raise, those recommendations apparently were either not made or not implemented. Absent a contractual obligation on the part of the employer with respect to salary increments, a circumstance not here present, an employee's frustration caused by not receiving an expected pay raise does not constitute good cause within the statutory intendment. Cf. Board of Review, &c. v. Kearfott Mfg. Corp., 46 N.J.Super. 39, 133 A.2d 663 (App.Div.1957).
We are, however, satisfied that petitioner's subsequent employment by the Center was erroneously held not to toll the disqualification which resulted from her voluntary termination of her bank employment.
The undisputed proofs before the Board of Review regarding the nature of the Center indicated that it is a social service agency organized by the Catholic Diocese of Camden and apparently operated under its aegis. Among its activities is a nondenominational community service assistance project for senior citizens residing in Cumberland County funded by the Federal Government. Petitioner's employment was as a community worker for the project. It is clear that the undertakings of the Center are eleemosynary and not religious. The Center is, therefore, not only not itself a church but it is also not an organization operated by a church 'primarily for religious purposes.' Cf. Presbyterian Homes v. Division of Tax Appeals, 55 N.J. 275, 284, 261 A.2d 143 (1970); Catholic Char., Dio. of Camden v. Pleasantville, 109 N.J.Super. 475, 480--482, 263 A.2d 803 (App.Div.1970), certif. den. 56 N.J. 474, 267 A.2d 56 (1970).
The Board of Review candidly concedes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brady v. Board of Review
...violence, although a compelling reason, was a personal decision disqualifying claimant from benefits); DeSantis v. Board of Review, 149 N.J.Super. 35, 38, 372 A.2d 1362 (App.Div.1977) (holding that employee's quitting due to frustration and disappointment in not receiving raise was not caus......
-
Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. State Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n
...that provides essentially secular services falls outside of the scope of" the religious purposes exemption); DeSantis v. Board of Rev., 372 A.2d 1362, 1364 ( N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 1977) (concluding Catholic social service agency not operated primarily for religious purposes because provisio......
-
Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. State of Wis. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n
... ... State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, Respondent-Co-Appellant, State of Wisconsin ... staff employed and board members appointed." ... ¶6 ... Under CCB's ... scope of" the religious purposes exemption); ... DeSantis v. Board of Rev. , 372 A.2d 1362, 1364 ( ... N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div ... ...
-
Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. State of Wis. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n
... ... State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, Respondent-Co-Appellant, State of Wisconsin ... staff employed and board members appointed." ... ¶6 ... Under CCB's ... scope of" the religious purposes exemption); ... DeSantis v. Board of Rev. , 372 A.2d 1362, 1364 ( ... N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div ... ...