Superior Court of New Jersey
Appellate Division
A-1516-95T5
DAVID H. CASCIANO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
Defendant-Respondent.

Submitted January 22, 1997
Decided May 16, 1997
Before Judges Pressler, Stern and Wecker
On appeal from a Final Decision of the Board of Review.
David H. Casciano, pro se, submitted a brief.
Peter Verniero, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Alan C. Stephens, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by WECKER, J.S.C., t/a

Petitioner David H. Casciano appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review, affirming the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, which held him disqualified for unemployment benefits because he left the job without good cause attributable to the work. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). That statute provides in pertinent part:

An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
(a) For the week in which the individual has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work, and for each week thereafter until the individual becomes reemployed and works four weeks in employment . . . and has earned in employment at least six times the individual’s weekly benefit rate, as determined in each case.

It is undisputed that petitioner was employed by Princeton Telephone Answering Service, Inc. (Princeton) from July 1994 through March 3, 1995. He then began employment with the Internal Revenue Service on March 6, but was laid off on March 17 and therefore did not have sufficient service with the Internal Revenue Service to qualify for unemployment benefits from that employer.

The Appeal Tribunal heard only two witnesses: petitioner and a former assistant manager employed at Princeton. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that contradicted petitioner’s testimony. According to petitioner, he sought to change jobs for two reasons. First, he claimed he was pressured to participate in intentional overbilling of clients. Second, he claimed his wages were underpaid, allegedly in violation of the Wage and Hour Law. If true, we have no doubt that each of those circumstances alone would establish “good cause attributable to [the] work.”

Petitioner testified with respect to the overbilling that he went from total innocence, believing everything was correct, to suspecting that something was wrong, to being reasonably sure that something was wrong. (snip -ed)