Stauhs v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor and Industry, A--1173

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
Citation93 N.J.Super. 451,226 A.2d 182
Docket NumberNo. A--1173,A--1173
PartiesJoseph STAUHS, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, State of New Jersey, Respondent.
Decision Date23 January 1967

Bernard P. Hughes, Newark, for appellant.

Edward A. Kaplan, Jersey City, for respondent.

Before Judges CONFORD, FOLEY and LEONARD.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

LEONARD, J.A.D.

Claimant-appellant appeals from a final determination of the Board of Review, Division of Employment Security, Department of Labor and Industry, affirming a decision of the Appeal Tribunal that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21--5(a) for leaving work '* * * voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work * * *.'

Claimant, aged 62, was a federal employee of the United States Post Office in Newark for approximately 40 years until December 30, 1965. He was a special delivery dispatcher and sorter. His work required that he walk up and down 35 steps approximately every 20 minutes to pick up the special delivery mail, take it down, cancel it, and distribute it to messengers on their runs. He also was required to answer some 60 to 85 telephone calls a day.

On June 27, 1965 claimant underwent surgery for the removal of a tumor of the larynx. Evidently portions of his vocal cords were also removed in that operation. About five weeks after the operations he returned to work and attempted to perform his regular duties. He testified that following the operation his doctor advised him that the use of his voice in his work and the climbing of the stairs would be detrimental to his health. The physician asserted that the physical exertion required by claimant's employment prevented proper healing and he recommended that he seek other work.

During the middle of September 1965 claimant asked his supervisor for a transfer to other duties which would not involve the use of his voice or the climbing of stairs. He was told that no other assignment was available to him at the post office, and he remained at his regular position at the request of his supervisor until the end of the year in order to assist in the busy Christmas season. On December 30, 1965 he retired on a pension of $370 per month, stating that he did so 'on the advice of my physician who recommends I seek lighter employment because of my physical condition * * *.' On January 12, 1966 claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits in which he indicated that he was not working because 'he retired on advice of doctor.'

It is conceded that even though claimant was a federal employee his right to compensation must be determined under the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law. We therefore first review the pertinent statutory provision, N.J.S.A. 43:21--5.

The original act, L. 1936, c. 270, § 5, provided that

'An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: (a) For the week in which he has left work voluntarily without good cause, and for each week thereafter until he has earned in employment * * * at least four times his weekly benefit rate * * *.'

This act was amended in 1961 and now provides:

'An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: (a) 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 * * *.' (Emphasis added)

Appellant does not contend that either his illness or the operation performed upon him were caused by his work. Rather, he asserts that following the operation the daily chores required of him in this work were detrimental to his existing physical condition, and since his physician advised him to leave his position, he did so with 'good cause attributable to such work.'

To the contrary, respondent urges that under the amendment appellant is disqualified from compensation benefits because his disability was not causally related to his work and therefore not 'attributable' thereto.

The resolution of the issue thus presented requires the construction of the amendatory words 'attributable to such work.' Claimant urges liberal construction in order to further the remedial and beneficial purposes of the act. See Campbell Soup Co. v. Division of Employment Security, 13 N.J. 431, 436, 100 A.2d 287 (1953). Even though that principle is apt, we nevertheless cannot ignore the eligibility and disqualification provisions of the act. They are designed to preserve the fund for the payment of benefits to those individuals entitled thereto, and to protect it against the claims of others who would prefer benefits to suitable jobs. The basic policy of the law is advanced as well when benefits are denied in improper cases as when they are allowed in proper cases. Kraus v. A. & M. Karagheusian, Inc., 13 N.J. 447, 455, 100 A.2d 277 (1953).

We first consider the judicial construction of the disqualification section of the original act. The leading case prior to amendment was Kraus, supra, wherein the court said 'What is 'good cause' must reflect the underlying purpose of the act to relieve against the distress of involuntary unemployment. The seeming paradox of allowing benefits to an individual whose unemployment is of his own volition disappears when the context of the words is viewed in that light. The Legislature contemplated that when an individual voluntarily leaves a job under the pressure of circumstances which may reasonably be viewed as having compelled him to do so, the termination of his employment is involuntary for the purposes of the act. In statutory contemplation he cannot then reasonably be judged as free to stay at the job. Unlike the statutes of some states, the New Jersey act does not require that 'good cause' be 'connected with the work' or 'attributable to the work.' Therefore, 'good cause' may also lie in extraneous factors exerting compulsive pressure upon the claimant and causing him to quit. * * * ' (at p. 464, 100 A.2d at p. 286; emphasis added)

Thereafter, relying upon Kraus we held that:

'The voluntary termination of employment does not bar the statutory relief in all cases. That result follows only when good cause for doing so does not exist. * * * Manifestly, good cause may have a work connected origin or may arise from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Brady v. Board of Review
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1997
    ...amended the statute in 1961 to disqualify claimants who left work for purely personal reasons. See Stauhs v. Board of Review, 93 N.J.Super. 451, 457, 226 A.2d 182 (App.Div.1967) ("[T]he intention of the Legislature in passing the 1961 amendment was to exclude from the term 'good cause' ... ......
  • Fox v. Woodbridge Tp. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1985
    ...when an employee is unable to work because of illness but yet, attempts to protect her employment); Stauhs v. Board of Review, 93 N.J.Super. 451, 457, 226 A.2d 182 (App.Div.1967) (working conditions detrimental to existing physical condition whose origin was not work-related did not constit......
  • Fennell v. Board of Review
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • February 7, 1997
    ...the disqualification language of the statute. White v. Bd. of Review, 146 N.J.Super. at 270, 369 A.2d 937; Stauhs v. Bd. of Review, 93 N.J.Super. 451, 226 A.2d 182 (App.Div.1967). The only recognized exception to the rule is where an employee, unable to work because of illness "does those t......
  • Self v. Board of Review
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1982
    ...cause attributable to the work." DeLorenzo v. Board of Review, 54 N.J. 361, 363, 255 A.2d 248 (1969); see Stauhs v. Board of Review, 93 N.J.Super. 451, 457, 226 A.2d 182 (App.Div.1967). From that perspective, a departure not attributable to work is a "voluntary departure without good cause ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT