ERIN K. MECCA,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
Respondent.

_________________________________________

Submitted March 7, 2006 - Decided March 29, 2006

Before Judges Hoens and Seltzer.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 74,329.

Hartsough Kenny & Chase, attorneys for appellant (Gregory J. Sullivan, of counsel and on the brief).

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

PER CURIAM

Claimant Erin Mecca appeals from the final decision of the Board of Review affirming the decision of the Appeal Tribunal that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm.

Mecca was employed by Macy's East, Inc., as an executive in the Macy's By Appointment Department from June 1, 2004 until March 28, 2005. Mecca's claim for unemployment benefits was initially approved based on her assertion that she had been discharged from her job. Following an appeal from that decision by Macy's, an appeals examiner convened a telephone hearing during which Mecca and two witnesses from Macy's testified.

According to both the Macy's Store Manager and a Regional Manager, Mecca had complained to them about conflicts that she was having with a co-worker. Although the Regional Manager had intervened, the conflict was not resolved and Mecca continued to complain about the situation. Late in March 2005, Mecca told the Store Manager that she was leaving her position at the end of the month because she was dissatisfied with her rate of pay and with the continuing conflict with her co-worker. According to the Store Manager, at the time, Mecca did not qualify for an increase in pay because she had not been in her position for a year and because her performance was deficient. The Store Manager testified that when Mecca said that she would be leaving, her resignation was accepted, effective as of March 28, 2005.

The Regional Manager testified that she was Mecca's direct supervisor while Mecca was employed at Macy's. She described several conversations and meetings that she had with Mecca and the other employee in an effort to resolve their conflict. According to the Regional Manager, on March 14, Mecca told her that she had two other job offers and "was going to be deciding what she was going to do." The Regional Manager testified that Mecca resigned her position on March 28, 2005.

Mecca also testified, but she disputed the testimony given by the other witnesses. She testified that she was summoned to a meeting with the Regional Manager and the Store Manager on March 28, 2005 and that she was summarily terminated. She conceded that she never received any paperwork evidencing a termination and she also conceded that she had told the Store Manager earlier in March that she was looking for another job. She denied that she left her job voluntarily.

Based on this testimony, the Appeal Tribunal found as a matter of fact that Mecca was not terminated but that she left the job because she was dissatisfied about her pay and the unresolved conflict with her co-worker. The Appeal Tribunal concluded that neither of Mecca's reasons for her departure from her position constituted sufficient good cause for leaving her job voluntarily. In particular, the Appeal Tribunal noted that an individual who leaves work "voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work" is disqualified from receiving benefits. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a).

In addressing the facts in the record, the Appeal Tribunal concluded that Mecca's reasons for leaving her job constituted "[m]ere dissatisfaction with working conditions" that disqualified her from receiving benefits. See Medwick v. Board of Review, 69 N.J. Super. 338, 345 (App. Div. 1961). In addition, the Appeal Tribunal concluded that neither a denial of a raise in pay nor an unresolved conflict with a co-employee provides good cause to leave employment sufficient to support an award of benefits. See Associated Utility Serv., Inc. v. Board of Review, 131 N.J. Super. 584, 587 (App. Div. 1974). The Board of Review thereafter affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's decision. On appeal, Mecca argues that the decision of the Board of Review is in error as a matter of fact. She asserts that because she was terminated from her position, she is not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.

The scope of our review is narrow. We are required to give deference to the factual findings of the Board of Review that are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. See Mullarney v. Board of Review, 343 N.J. Super. 401, 406 (App. Div. 2001); Rudbart v. Board of Review, 339 N.J. Super. 118, 125 (App. Div. 2001). In doing so, we do not consider "'whether we would come to the same conclusion if the original determination was ours to make, but rather whether the fact-finder could reasonably so conclude upon the proofs.'" Zielenski v. Board of Review, 85 N.J. Super. 46, 54 (App. Div. 1964)(quoting Morgan v. Board of Review, 77 N.J. Super. 209, 213 (App. Div. 1962)). Moreover, it is well-settled that an appellate court should not disturb an agency's ruling unless it "finds that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." Brady v. Board of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997).

As the claimant, Mecca has the burden of proving that her decision to leave work voluntarily was for good cause attributable to the work. Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 218; Morgan, supra, 77 N.J. Super. at 213. As we have previously held, "[m]ere dissatisfaction with working conditions which are not shown to be abnormal or do not affect health, does not constitute" the requisite good cause. Medwick, supra, 69 N.J. Super. at 345. Rather, "[t]he decision to leave employment must be compelled by real, substantial and reasonable circumstances . . . ." Domenico v. Board of Review, 192 N.J. Super. 284, 288 (App. Div. 1983).

Applying these well-settled precedents to the decision of the Board of Review, we find substantial, credible evidence in the record to support the factual finding that Mecca was not terminated but that she left her job voluntarily. We further find substantial, credible evidence in the record that supports the finding that Mecca left her job because she was dissatisfied with her pay and because of the conflict with her co-worker. Those findings, in turn, compel the conclusion that she left her job without good cause attributable to the work, disqualifying her from benefits.

Affirmed.