Claimants contend that the Board's finding that they had a reasonable assurance of employment in an instructional capacity during the 1983-84 academic year because the Woodbridge Board of Education had offered to place their names on a substitute teacher's roster was based on insufficient credible evidence in the record.Ĭlaimants were employed by the Woodbridge Township Board of Education as supplemental teachers during the 1982-83 academic year. The opinion of the court was delivered by MATTHEWS, P.J.A.D.Ĭlaimants, part-time supplemental instructors for the Woodbridge Board of Education during the 1982-83 academic year who had a one-year oral guarantee of employment, appeal from a final determination of the Board of Review which held them ineligible for unemployment benefits from Jthrough the end of the period between academic years. Wigder, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement). Bokar, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel Todd A. Kimmelman, Attorney General, attorney for respondent, Board of Review, Department of Labor submitted a Statement in Lieu of Brief (Michael S. Palmisano argued the cause for respondent, Woodbridge Board of Education (Palmisano & Goodman, attorneys *76 Carl J. George Canellis argued the cause for appellants (Dwyer, Canellis & Bell, attorneys Christopher M. *75 Before Judges MATTHEWS, FURMAN and HAVEY. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. AND WOODBRIDGE BOARD OF EDUCATION, RESPONDENTS.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |