Nicholas v. Board of Review, Dept. of Labor and Industry
| Decision Date | 26 October 1979 |
| Citation | 171 N.J.Super. 36,407 A.2d 1254 |
| Parties | Lori J. NICHOLAS, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, State of New Jersey and Foreman Manufacturing Co., Inc., Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Lori J. Nicholas, pro se.
John J. Degnan, Atty. Gen., for respondent Board of Review (Michael S. Bokar, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel; Donna J. Kelly, Deputy Atty. Gen., on brief).
Before Judges FRITZ, KOLE and LANE.
In this appeal from a denial of unemployment compensation benefits by the Board of Review, affirming the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, appellant does not deny that she quit work voluntarily because she was dissatisfied with her income. There is no question but that such is a voluntary leaving without good cause attributable to the work and disqualifies the employee for benefits. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a); DeSantis v. Board of Review, 149 N.J.Super. 35, 372 A.2d 1362 (App.Div.1977).
She testified, however, that during the period after she had given notice but while she was working out the term of the period of notice, she was advised there was to be "a better price," so she then told her "floor boss" that "I was satisfied with what he gave me, so I was staying." Her contention here is that this in effect cancelled her quitting and that the refusal of her employer thereafter to permit her to work constituted an involuntary leaving by virtue of having been discharged.
There was testimony from the employer that during the week in which appellant worked after she had given notice, "arrangements were made to replace her and . . . she was replaced."
The position of the agency, expressed in the opinion of the Appeal Tribunal, is that a notice of quitting separates the employee from the job and is a voluntary leaving. We concur, especially in an industry where, as noted in the opinion of the Appeal Tribunal, "piece rate wages may be incorrect and are corrected after time studies and the claimant did not give the employer a reasonable time to correct her wage error before she gave notice of quitting."
As noted in Guy Gannett Pub. Co. v. Maine Employment Sec. Com'n, 317 A.2d 183 (Maine Sup.Jud.Ct.),
A resignation, when voluntary, is essentially an unconditional event the legal significance and finality of which cannot be altered by the measure of time between the employee's notice and the actual date of departure from the job. An employer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Dept. of Employment Services
...(Ind.Ct.App. 1979); Guy Gannett Publishing Co. v. Maine Employment Security Commission, 317 A.2d 183 (1974); Nicholas v. Board of Review, 171 N.J.Super. 36, 407 A.2d 1254 (1979); Whicker v. High Point Public Schools, 56 N.C.App. 253, 287 S.E.2d 439 DOES has determined that the majority rule......
-
LeBeau v. Commissioner of Dept. of Employment and Training
...because plaintiff denied opportunity to withdraw resignation; no right to withdraw resignation); Nicholas v. Board of Review, Dep't of Labor & Indus., 171 N.J.Super. 36, 407 A.2d 1254 (1979) (voluntary quit followed by decision to stay rejected by employer does not constitute discharge); Wh......
-
Swanson v. State
...resignation sets in motion steps for hiring a replacement, a denial of unemployment compensation is improper. Nicholas v. Board of Review, 171 N.J.Super. 36, 407 A.2d 1254 (1979); see also Armistead v. State, 22 Cal.3d 198, 149 Cal.Rptr. 1, 583 P.2d 744 The factual context of this case is u......
-
Langley v. Employment Appeal Bd.
...N.E.2d 1174, 1176 (1979); Guy Gannett Publishing Co. v. Maine Employment Sec. Comm'n, 317 A.2d 183 (Me.1974); Nicholas v. Board of Review, 171 N.J.Super. 36, 407 A.2d 1254 (1979); Whicker v. High Point Pub. Schools, 56 N.C.App. 253, 287 S.E.2d 439 We reject the Pennsylvania rule. An employe......
-
The Legal Framework of a Products Liability Case in Connecticut
...Ford, 170 Conn. 18 23,364 A.2d 175 1970. 43. Giglio. at 35; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 35 Conn. Sup. 687, 690-91, 407 A.2d 1254 Sess. 1979; Living & Learning Centre, Inc. v. Griese Custom Signs, Inc., 3 Conn. App. 661, 491 A. d 433 (1985). If one pleads a specific defe......