Goebelbecker v. State, No. A--365

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: FREUND
• Citation: 53 N.J.Super. 53,146 A.2d 488
• Parties: Emil GOEBELBECKER, Claimant-Appellant, v. STATE of New Jersey, Board of Review, Department of Labor and Industry, Division of Employment Security and Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Respondents-Respondents. . Appellate Division
• Decision Date: 01 December 1958
• Docket Number: No. A--365

Page 53

53 N.J.Super. 53 146 A.2d 488 Emil GOEBELBECKER, Claimant-Appellant,
v.
STATE of New Jersey, Board of Review, Department of Labor
and Industry, Division of Employment Security and
Curtiss-Wright Corporation,
Respondents-Respondents. No. A--365. Superior Court of New Jersey.
Appellate Division. Argued Nov. 10, 1958.
Decided Dec. 1, 1958.

Page 54

Peter Cammelieri, Fair Lawn, argued the cause for claimant-appellant (Harvey Smith, Hackensack, of counsel; Edward Casel, Fair Lawn, on the brief).

Edward A. Kaplan, Jersey City, argued the cause for respondent Division of Employment Security, Department of Labor and Industry (Clarence F. McGovern, Medford Lakes, attorney; Edward A. Kaplan, on the brief).

Robert P. Knapp, Jr., New York City, argued the cause for respondent Curtiss-Wright Corp. (Smith, James & Mathias, Jersey City, attorneys; Breed, Abbott & Morgan, New York City, and Allen C. Mathias, Jersey City, of counsel).

Before Judges CONFORD, FREUND and HANEMAN.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FREUND, J.A.D.

This is an appeal by claimant from a denial of unemployment compensation benefits[146 A.2d 489] under the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law, N.J.S.A. 43:21--5.

On November 25, 1957 Emil Goebelbecker filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Department of Labor and Industry, stating that he was not employed because of 'lack of work,' although he was 'ready, willing and able

Page 55

to work full time.' After claimant was interviewed, the examiner determined that his 'failure, without good cause, to accept or apply for suitable work,' disqualified him from unemployment benefits. Claimant sought and was given another interview, also resulting in a denial of benefits. He then appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, Department of Labor and Industry, and after hearing, it was again determined that claimant was disqualified from unemployment benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21--5(a). Dissatisfied, Goebelbecker took a further appeal to the Board of Review, which affirmed the determination of the Appeal Tribunal.

Claimant appeals to this court from the decision rendered by the Board of Review.

The essential facts are as follows: Claimant on October 25, 1951 was employed by the Wright-Aeronautical Division of the Curtiss-Wright Corporation as a 'miller experimental.' He continued in the same capacity until September 2, 1957, at which time his basic wage was $2.61 per hour, plus 10% For working the second shift. On September 2, 1957 he was transferred, for lack of work, and was downgraded to work as miller, at a base pay of $2.35 per hour, plus a shift premium. He continued in the capacity of miller until October 28, 1957 when he was given the opportunity to return to his former work as miller experimental, at $2.77 per hour. He accepted the offer.

On November 25, 1957, again because of lack of work in the occupation as miller experimental, he was offered a job as broacher at $2.32 per hour, on the first day shift. He refused to accept the transfer because (1) he had never worked as a broacher; (2) he had never operated a broaching machine; (3) he was a skilled worker and, as such, objected to taking a helper's job at lower pay than he had been receiving. He said that he made no effort to examine the broaching machine, although he had seen it; he conceded he had the right to try broaching on a trial basis. He testified that he would not take a helper's job at lower pay since he could 'go outside' and 'find a job with better pay and in my line.'

Page 56

During 1957 the Curtiss-Wright Corporation suffered widespread layoffs due to lack of work, causing 7,000 to 8,000 employees to be separated from their employment. Before laying off a worker the employer was required, under its...