JOSE J. BONILLA,
Claimant-Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT Respondent-Respondent,=
and ZAGO MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Respondent. ___________________________________
Argued February 13, =
2001 -
Decided March 13,
2001
PETRELLA, P.J.A.D. In this appeal, claimant Jose J. Bonilla =
challenges a
decision by the Board of Review (Board) upholding the Appeal Tribunal's =
ruling
that he was not entitled to additional unemployment benefits during =
training
(ABT). On appeal, Bonilla argues that he was improperly denied =
additional
benefits because there was a "substantial reduction" in work =
opportunities that
entitled him to additional benefits under N.J.S.A. =
43:21-60 and N.J.A.C. 12:23-5.1. =
OF LABOR,
Before =
Judges
Petrella, Newman and
Wells.
On appeal =
from a
Final Decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor, 99-B-04658-
000-X0.
Jose J. =
Bonilla,
appellant, argued the cause pro
se.
John =
C. Turi,
Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Board of Review =
(John
J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General, attorney; Michael J. Haas, Assistant =
Attorney
General, of counsel; Mr. Turi, on the
brief).
No brief =
was
filed on behalf of respondent Zago Manufacturing Co., Inc.
The opinion of the =
Court was
delivered by
Bonilla
filed a claim for unemployment benefits on January 3, 1999. He was =
declared
eligible and received benefits for the full twenty-six week period =
allowable at
a weekly benefit rate of $289. Thereafter, he filed for additional =
benefits
under N.J.S.A. =
43:21-60.
On July 13, 1999, the Division =
of
Unemployment Insurance declared Bonilla ineligible for ABT under the =
Workforce
Development Partnership Program, on the ground that he left his former =
job for a
reason other than lack of work.
Bonilla was =
employed
by Zago Manufacturing Co., Inc. in Newark from August 16, 1996 to =
December 31,
1998. He claims he suffered numerous adverse health effects from the =
chemical
fumes in the factory where he worked. Bonilla asserts that his employer =
told him
he would be assigned to a room separate from the company floor so that =
he would
not be exposed to the industrial fumes. However, Bonilla testified that =
his
employer never took such action and that he continued to work in an =
unhealthy
environment where he was exposed to fumes. Bonilla claims that he =
contacted the
Labor Department, OSHA and other agencies, but received no assistance.
Dr. Rafael Latorre examined Bonilla and =
certified
that he suffered headaches and hypertension, but that he was able to =
work in
places with a less chemically contaminated environment. Bonilla claims =
he left
his job for health reasons and because of his doctor's recommendation =
that he
change jobs so that he could work in a healthier environment. He also =
asserts
that the company he worked for used toxic chemical solvents known to =
cause
various illnesses.
At the hearing before the =
Appeal
Tribunal, Bonilla testified that he began attending a computer graphics =
school
in August 1999 and expected to complete the course in December 1999. The =
Appeal
Tribunal affirmed the determination of the Deputy, finding that there =
was no
substantial reduction in work opportunities at Bonilla's former worksite =
and
that his separation from work was an isolated separation due to his =
leaving.
Thus, the Appeal Tribunal concluded that Bonilla was ineligible for =
additional
unemployment benefits during training under the New Jersey Workforce =
Development
Act (N.J.S.A. =
43:21-57 et seq.). The Board of Review affirmed the =
decision
of the Appeal Tribunal on the basis of the record below.
Bonilla argues that =
he is
entitled to additional benefits during training because he left his job =
for
health reasons.
It is well-settled that the =
claimant
normally has the burden of establishing entitlement to unemployment
compensation. Combs v. Board of Review, 269
N.J. Super. 616, 624 (App. Div. 1994). This applies to ABT claims =
under
N.J.S.A. =
43:21-60, which provides, in pertinent part, that additional =
benefits shall
be provided to any individual
who:
a. Has received =
a notice
of a permanent termination of employment by the individual's employer or =
has
been laid off and is unlikely to return to his previous employment =
because work
opportunities in the individual's job classification are impaired by a
substantial reduction of employment at the worksite;***
The above =
statute
is economically driven legislation that has the obvious purpose of =
enabling
individuals who are economically displaced from their employment to be =
paid
benefits while acquiring new skills to reenter a more marketable area of =
the
economy. It is thus clear that to obtain additional benefits during =
training,
the claimant must be fired or laid off and be unlikely to return to that =
job
because of a "substantial reduction of employment at the worksite."
Likewise, the implementing regulation,
N.J.A.C. 12:23-5.1, provides, in pertinent part,
that
(a) An =
individual will
be eligible for additional unemployment benefits during training only if =
the
individual:
Bonilla, relying upon Rider =
College
v. Board of Review, 167
N.J. Super. 42, 47 (App. Div. 1979), argues that he is entitled to
additional benefits because he left work due to the "intolerable working =
conditions" at his former job, which he argues constitutes "good cause," =
pursuant to N.J.S.A.
43:21-5(a). However, N.J.S.A.
43:21-5(a) is not at issue in this case because that section of the =
statute
applies to disqualification from benefits for leaving employment without =
good
cause related to the work. Bonilla was not disqualified for benefits. =
Indeed, he
was found eligible for a full twenty-six weeks of benefits because he =
left work
for good cause related to the work. He was simply declared ineligible =
for
additional benefits during training because he did not qualify under =
N.J.S.A. =
43:21-60.
It is undisputed that Bonilla left his job for =
health
reasons. Although the working conditions may have been poor, Bonilla was =
not
fired or laid off. In addition, and more significantly, he is ineligible =
for
additional benefits under N.J.S.A. =
43:21-60 because there was no evidence of a "substantial reduction =
of
employment at the worksite," that made him unlikely to return to his =
former job.
Therefore, Bonilla was appropriately found ineligible for additional
benefits.
Affirmed.