Kugel v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor and Industry
| Decision Date | 04 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. A--651,A--651 |
| Citation | 66 N.J.Super. 547,169 A.2d 717 |
| Parties | Lorrie S. KUGEL, Claimant-Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, State of New Jersey, Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Lorrie S. Kugel, pro se.
Edward A. Kaplan, Jersey City, for respondent (Clarence F. McGovern, Medford Lakes, attorney).
Before Judges PRICE, GAULKIN and SULLIVAN.
Claimant appeals from a ruling by the Division of Employment Security that she refund overpayments of $87.50 on unemployment compensation benefits paid to her under R.S. 43:21--1 et seq., N.J.S.A.
On January 26, 1959 claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits under the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Act, R.S. 43:21--1 et seq., N.J.S.A. The base year thereby established for claimant was the 52-week period from January 19, 1958 through January 17, 1959. During such period claimant worked for 11 weeks for M. C. Schrank Company (Schrank) at 439 5th Avenue, New York City. Schrank also had employment facilities in New Jersey and had employees who were covered by the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law. Claimant's employment with Schrank, however, was not covered by the New Jersey law but was subject to the New York Unemployment Compensation Law, and contributions thereunder, based on claimant's wages during the 11-week period, were paid by her employer into the New York fund. When claimant's employment with Schrank was terminated on March 7, 1958, she applied for and received weekly unemployment benefits from the State of New York until September 1958, when she obtained employment with Belmont Sheet Metal Works (Belmont) in Newark, New Jersey. This employment lasted for 21 1/2 weeks and was subject to the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law. When claimant's employment with Belmont terminated on January 23, 1959, she filed a claim for unemployment benefits under New Jersey law.
The Division of Employment Security, which administers the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law, processed her claim on the basis of her employment by Belmont and Schrank and determined that her maximum total benefits would be $857.50 payable, as eligible weeks of unemployment were established, at the benefit rate of $35 per week for a maximum 24 1/2 weeks; 16 weeks, or $560 thereof, chargeable against the account of Belmont, and 8 1/2 weeks, or $297.50, against the account of Schrank. (Under the law, N.J.S.A. 43:21--3(d), maximum total benefits are computed separately as to each employer and are three-fourths the claimant's weeks of employment by such employer during the base year, multiplied by the weekly benefit rate). Claimant thereupon received unemployment benefits for nine weeks through March 29, 1959, and for ten weeks from August 3, 1959 through October 11, 1959, amounting to $665. No payments were made in April, May, June, or July because claimant was not actively seeking work due to pregnancy. She obtained other employment on October 13, 1959.
Sometime thereafter Schrank notified the Division that benefits paid claimant 'should not be charged to their New Jersey account.' On December...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vasquez v. Horn
... ... John J. HORN, Commissioner, Department of Labor and ... Industry, State of NewJersey; Joseph S. iviani, Director, ... Division of Unemployment and TemporaryDisability ... Board of Review, 173 N.J.Super. 196, 413 A.2d 976 ... 447, 455-456, 100 A.2d 277 (1953); Kugel v. Board of Review, 66 N.J.Super. 547, 550, 169 ... the Director of the former Division of Employment Security "shall administer the work of such ... ...
-
Castellucci v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor and Industry
... ... Kugel v. Board of Review, 66 N.J.Super. 547, 550, 169 A.2d 717 (App.Div.1961). On the other hand, obviously the Legislature recognized that without the phrase here relied on by appellant the ordering of such a refund would be mandatory, even in cases where the result thus produced was inequitable. See ... ...
-
Lazar v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor and Industry
... ... For like cause and within the same period, credit or refund may be so made on the initiative of the director.' ... Claimant, as determined by the Board of Review, is liable to the Division for a refund of benefits erroneously paid to her under N.J.S.A. 43:21--16(d). Kugel ... ...
-
Glanner v. Labor and Industry Review Com'n
... ... See sec. 108.04(1)(g), Stats. Glanner again appealed to ... 1972); Kugel v. Board of Review, 169 A.2d 717, 719 (N.J ... ...