JEFFREY P. HANCHARICK,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND SILVERLINE BUILDING PRODUCTS,
Respondents-Respondents.

_________________________________

Submitted March 14, 2006 - Decided March 24, 2006

Before Judges Collester and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from a Final Decision of the

Board of Review, Department of Labor,

Docket No. 70,357.

Jeffrey Hancharick appellant pro se.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; John C. Turi, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Claimant Jeffrey Hancharick appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review denying his claim for unemployment benefits.

On this appeal, claimant raises the following arguments:

Claimant's being fired from job for failing a drug [test] was not given the opportunity to take a leave of absence and participate in a drug rehabilitation program which contradicts company policy handbook and Agreement between Silverline Building Products and Teamsters Local 97 of N.J.

Having reviewed the record we conclude that his contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(E) (1) (e), and we affirm. We add the following comments.

Claimant, a truck driver employed by Silverline Building Products, tested positive for illegal drugs on December 2, 2004. He denied having a drug problem and was permitted to return to work after being examined by a psychologist. He was fired after he failed a second drug test on February 23, 2005.

An employee is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if he is fired for misconduct connected to the work. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(b). Claimant's employer had a written drug test policy, and claimant was made aware of it. Thus claimant was properly disqualified for unemployment benefits pursuant to N.J.A.C. 12:17-10.9, which defines failing a drug test as misconduct connected with the work, provided the employer has a written policy which has been conveyed to the employees. Claimant appears to contend that a collective bargaining agreement required the company to provide him with a drug rehabilitation program, but we find no support in the record for this argument.

Affirmed.