![]() The court held that Self requires "a discrete balancing and evaluation of all factors. ![]() 2000), the court held that the employer’s relocation of the Company’s worksite while Claimant was out of work on maternity leave, thereby significantly increasing her commute and imposing a hardship on the employee, could have provided good cause for the employee to quit, entitling the employee to compensation benefits. at 521).Īpplying these principles, in Rolka v. at 459 (quoting Bateman, supra, 163 N.J.Super. Div.1978) in which the Appellate Division stated that "a case could possibly be envisaged in which a sudden change in employment circumstances.would properly be regarded as a condition attributable to the work rather than to the employee." Self, supra, 91 N.J. In support of that point, the court cited the decision in Bateman v. However, the court acknowledged that there could be circumstances in which the employer sets in motion a chain of events that leads to a separation of employment, thus qualifying that employee for benefits under the statute. On that basis, the court concluded that "the lack of transportation was not 'good cause attributable to' their employment within the purview of the statute." Id. In doing so, the court noted that the "employer did nothing to increase the commuting problems of claimants" and therefore "the reason they were unable to get to work was not work-related, but personal." Id. ![]() In Self, the court held that the Claimant’s lack of personal transportation to get to and from work did not constitute good cause attributable to the work sufficient to entitle the employees at issue to unemployment compensation benefits. Moreover, an individual who leaves work for several reasons, one of which constitutes good cause attributable to such work, shall not be disqualified for benefits." See N.J.A.C. In determining whether the “good cause” was attributable to the work, the courts have looked to whether the problems arose “solely” from the personal circumstances of the worker, unrelated to an alteration in the terms or conditions of employment. The determination of whether good cause exists for an employee to leave a job, entitling the employee to unemployment benefits, requires a “discrete balancing and evaluation of all factors” rather than a “mechanistic approach”. 43:21-5(a) requires a “consideration of all relevant factors”. The New Jersey Supreme Court has emphasized the determination of whether an individual left work without good cause attributable to the work in accordance with N.J.S.A. 162, 168, (App.Div.2005) ("The unemployment benefit law does not require that a plaintiff be either fired or constructively discharged in order to qualify for benefits." (citation omitted)). The Act protects not only workers who are involuntarily unemployed-those who are laid-off or terminated from their jobs by their employers-but also those who voluntarily quit their jobs for good cause attributable to their work. 24, 27 (App.Div.1951) see also Yardville Supply Co. "The purpose of the is to provide some income for the worker earning nothing, because he is out of work through no fault or act of his own." Battaglia v. 371, 374 see also Provident Institution for Sav. ![]() "o further the remedial and beneficial purposes," of the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law, the courts have recognized that "the is to be construed liberally in favor of allowance of benefits." Yardville Supply Co. The courts have established legal standards that are to be applied in determining whether an individual is eligible for benefits where they left a job due to good cause attributable to the work such as in situations in which the employee was being harassed, subject to a hostile work environment or other situations in which the employee had good cause to leave the job.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |