holding "[i]f the Board's factual findings are supported 'by sufficient credible evidence, A-0036-18T1 14 courts are obliged to accept them,'" quoting Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453, 459 (1982), and the agency's decision may not be disturbed unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable
How later courts described this case
- holding "[i]f the Board's factual findings are supported 'by sufficient credible evidence, A-0036-18T1 14 courts are obliged to accept them,'" quoting Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453, 459 (1982), and the agency's decision may not be disturbed unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable
- holding "[i]f the Board's factual findings are supported 'by sufficient credible evidence, courts are obliged to accept them,'" quoting Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453, 459 (1982), and the agency's decision may not be disturbed unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable
- stating "[t]he test of 'ordinary common sense and prudence' must be utilized to determine whether an employee's decision to leave work constitutes good cause"
- stating N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) was amended "in 1961 to disqualify claimants who left work for purely personal reasons."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COLEMAN, J.,
dissenting.
I would affirm the judgment below finding that claimants are eligible for unemployment benefits substantially for the reasons stated by the Appellate Division. General Motors’s communica *223 tions to its employees that the plant was closing were unequivocal and unyielding. It persisted in those communications until two days after the deadline to file for early retirement had passed. Under the totality of circumstances, claimants established a reasonable belief of a real, substantial, and imminent risk of losing their jobs.
Furthermore, a finding that claimants are eligible to collect unemployment benefits will not result in a double recovery because N.J.S.A. 43:21-5a requires a set-off based oh pension or retirement payments received by claimants. Consequently, I dissent.
STEIN, J., joins in this opinion.
For reversal and reinstatement — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN and GARIBALDI — 5.
For affirmance — Justices COLEMAN and STEIN — 2.