FELIX PENA VS. BOARD OF REVIEWÂ (BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2231-15T1
FELIX PENA,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW and
BRICKFORCE TRANSPORTATION,
INC.,
Respondents.
______________________________________________________
Argued January 10, 2017 – Decided February 10, 2017
Resubmitted April 27, 2017 – Decided May 16, 2017
Before Judges Fisher, Ostrer and Leone.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department
of Labor, Docket No. 54,189.
Felix Pena, appellant, pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Melissa Dutton
Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel; Marolhin D. Mendez, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
Respondent Brickforce Transportation, Inc.,
has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
In an earlier opinion, we observed that appellant failed to
participate in the Appeal Tribunal telephonic hearing, which
produced the facts upon which the Appeal Tribunal determined that
appellant was not entitled to unemployment benefits. In his
administrative appeal to the Board, appellant claimed he was
confused about how to participate at the hearing and thought the
Appeal Tribunal would telephone him on the date designated in the
scheduling notice. The Board, without explanation, concluded that
appellant did not present good cause for failing to appear for the
hearing and affirmed the denial of benefits.
Although, in our earlier opinion, we explained the framework
for determining, in this instance, whether appellant voluntarily
left his job -- appellant worked for a firm that provided workers
to others -- we did not then reach the merits. Instead, we remanded
so the Board could "expla[in] . . . its conclusion that good cause
was not shown for appellant's failure to appear at the hearing."
Pena v. Board of Review, No. A-2231-15 (App. Div. Feb. 10, 2017)
(slip op. at 4).
In responding to our mandate, the Board rendered a decision
in which it determined that appellant received and read the hearing
notice, which states:
IMPORTANT: YOU MUST CALL THE OFFICE OF APPEALS
ON THE DATE OF THE HEARING (SHOWN BELOW) 15
TO 30 MINUTES BEFORE THE SCHEDULED HEARING
2 A-2231-15T1
TIME. YOU WILL BE ASKED TO PROVIDE YOUR NAME,
AREA CODE AND TELEPHONE NUMBER. At the time
of the hearing, remain by the phone and keep
the line clear. The Appeals Examiner will call
you back when ready for the hearing. The
Appeal Tribunal may not be able to call at the
exact time set, so please remain near your
phone for at least 60 minutes after the
scheduled hearing time. Your appeal may be
dismissed or you may be denied participation
in the hearing if you fail, without good
cause, to follow these instructions.
In light of this notice, which appellant acknowledged receiving
and reading in advance of the hearing, the Board found no substance
in appellant's contention that he misunderstood what he was
required to do in order to participate at the hearing. As can be
seen, the notice was written in plain, simple, and unambiguous
language; consequently, we find appellant's arguments regarding
the notice and his failure to appear for the hearing to be of
insufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E).
In light of the administrative regulations set forth in our
earlier opinion, Pena, supra, slip op. at 2-3, and the finding
that appellant failed to report to his employer's branch office
the day after completion of his last work assignment, as required
by his employment agreement, we find no merit in the appeal.
Affirmed.
3 A-2231-15T1