DOCKET NO. A-0032-05T20032-05T2

AVE MARIA MICELI,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondent-Respondent,
and
RKS ASSOCIATES,
Respondent.

_____________________________________

Submitted June 6, 2006 - Decided July 17, 2006
Before Judges Wefing and Fuentes.
On appeal from Board of Review,
Department of Labor, No. 65,708.

Appellant submitted a pro se brief.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General,
Attorney for respondent Board of Review

(Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ellen A. Reichart, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from a Final Decision of the Board of Review that she was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

Petitioner was employed as a teacher's assistant by the Harbor School for nearly five years, working with children suffering from autism. On December 10, 2004, she submitted her letter of resignation, stating her last day of work would be January 4, 2005.

In November 2004 she was assigned to work with a new teacher, but it became evident that the two had a strained working relationship. In December 2004 she was transferred to an adjoining classroom in light of that relationship. Petitioner was unhappy with this new assignment because this classroom had one teacher and two other teaching assistants for a small number of students; petitioner believed she was not needed and was thus unable to contribute as she had previously. She admitted that if she had not been transferred to this new room, she would have remained as an employee.

The limited scope of our review of administrative decisions such as this is well-known. A final decision of an administrative body such as the Board of Review should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Karins v. City of Atl. City, 152 N.J. 532, 540 (1998).

Here, the Board's finding that petitioner left her employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to her work is amply supported by the record. Its conclusion that petitioner was, therefore, ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) is affirmed.

Affirmed.