WILLIAM BEATTY v. BOARD OF REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MARINA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT CO (2010)

William F. Beatty appeals from a June 24, 2009 final decision of the Board of Review denying his claim for unemployment benefits.   We affirm.

Beatty, who had been employed as a part-time crowd control specialist at the Borgata Hotel and Casino, was demoted after the employer found he had been “overly aggressive” with a customer.   Rather than accept the demotion, which resulted in reduced work hours and a one dollar reduction in his pay rate of seventeen dollars per hour, Beatty quit and applied for unemployment benefits.   The Deputy deemed Beatty eligible for unemployment benefits.   However, following a hearing on the employer's appeal, the Appeal Tribunal reversed the Deputy and held Beatty ineligible.

Before the Appeal Tribunal, Beatty contended that when he expressed dissatisfaction with the demotion, his employer told him he could resign if he did not want to accept the demotion.   Due to his unhappiness with the demotion and “differences with [his] supervisor” Beatty chose to resign.   However, at the hearing, he admitted that, financially, it was a “mistake” to resign without first obtaining another job.   Relying on Zielenski v. Board of Review, 85 N.J.Super. 46, 53-54 (App.Div.1964), the Tribunal concluded that Beatty was disqualified for voluntarily leaving his employment without good cause attributable to the work, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a).

On this appeal Beatty raises the following argument:

CLAIMANT LEFT HIS JOB WITH EMPLOYER DUE TO UNSAFE WORK CONDITIONS FOR CUSTOMERS AND PERSONAL SAFETY PER OSHA GUIELINES STATES THIS AS A VALID REASON FOR RESIGNATION

Beatty did not argue before the Appeal Tribunal that his working conditions were unsafe.   Nor did he testify at the hearing, as he now asserts in his brief, that his employer told him he could collect unemployment benefits if he resigned.   Therefore, we will not consider those arguments on this appeal.   Nieder v. Royal Indem.   Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973).   The agency's decision is supported by substantial credible evidence and is consistent with the applicable law.  See Zielenski, supra, 85 N.J.Super. at 53-54;  R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).  Beatty's appellate contentions do not warrant further discussion here.   R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM