PER CURIAM.
Appellant Judith A. Grignon appeals from the final agency decision of the Board of Review, denying her claim to unemployment benefits. We affirm.
The question presented is whether Grignon is entitled to the protection of New Jersey's Unemployment Compensation Law,
In essence, in determining whether the employee voluntarily left employment for good cause attributable to the work, the employee must show that he or she did all that was "necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed."
Grignon was hired by the New Jersey Agricultural Society (NJAS) in June 2001 and served as the Program Director of the Farmers Against Hunger Program (FAH) until February 2011, when she submitted her letter of resignation. Grignon filed a claim for unemployment benefits. A determination was made by the Deputy Director of the Division of Unemployment and Disability Insurance that she was disqualified for benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left work without good cause attributable to the work,
Grignon appealed this determination and a hearing was conducted over several days before the Appeals Tribunal.
At the hearing, Grignon testified that donors expressed concern that their contributions go specifically to FAH and not to the general funds of NJAS. It was her belief that FAH should have a checking account separate from that of NJAS. Grignon stated she received income statements, expense statements, and profit and loss statements, but was never given the cash position of FAH. Because she was not satisfied with the completeness of the financial information she received, Grignon felt she could not represent to donors that their money was indeed going directly to FAH.
Joan Elliott, the Executive Director of NJAS, testified that every piece of information requested by Grignon was provided. Specifically, she tried to give Grignon monthly reports on the profit and loss, balance sheet, activity of the organization, actual year-to-date budget ratios, and the amount over and above the budget. This information also showed how the money was separated out among the organizations. Carry-over balances, an item that Grignon repeatedly complained was missing, were not included because they are not traditionally included in a budget report. When Grignon was sent the reports, a note was attached at the bottom to report anything that seemed suspicious or to ask questions of anything that was not clear. To Elliott's knowledge, Grignon never followed through with reporting anything she found to be incorrect. However, Grignon testified that she reported several mistakes in the bookkeeper's reports that were not corrected.
Grignon was not alone in her criticism. Pamela Mount, former NJAS President, testified that all charges made for FAH are on the general NJAS account, making it difficult to identify what charges were incurred by each entity. She also claimed she was refused the information she requested of the NJAS Treasurer and that she had received information from New Jersey's Secretary of Agriculture that FAH needed its own bank account.
In December 2010, after a donor offered to contribute $20,000 on the condition that the money go into an account labeled "Farmers Against Hunger," the Advisory Board of FAH met and voted to open its own bank account. Mount opened an account for FAH at Wells Fargo with $100 of her own money. Mount testified she was ordered to close the account by the NJAS Executive Board and told she had stolen money from NJAS by putting money in a separate account. Elliott stated that the vote to open a separate bank account was invalid because all decisions made by the Advisory Board must be approved by the NJAS Board of Trustees, and though the Advisory Board had approved the account, the Board of Trustees had not. The donor withdrew his donation as a result.
Grignon attended a meeting on January 19, 2011, with four of the five members of the FAH Board of Trustees where, she testified, she was "threatened, . . . bullied . . . [and] intimidated." She also said she was told that if she worked for another company, she would have been fired; "that [she] could not go public, and that [she] . . . needed to keep [her] head down." Grignon decided to resign after this meeting "because it was ethically [and] morally wrong to never be able to get the. . . financial information that so many of us wanted." She felt she was forced to resign because she was not appreciated and that "they did not deserve" a one-week or two-week notice.
Elliott testified she knew Grignon had concerns about the fact that FAH did not have a separate checkbook and believed she resigned for that reason. Elliott testified that FAH is a program of the NJAS and, although it has its own Advisory Board, it lacks the power to make decisions without the approval of the Board of NJAS. Elliott refuted claims of fiscal impropriety, noting the NJAS has a "complete yellow book audit every year by a very reputable A++ accountant." The audits never reported that something was being done incorrectly with FAH or that there needed to be a separate account for FAH. According to these audits, all money that comes in for FAH is spent on FAH.
The Appeal Tribunal affirmed the determination of the Deputy, stating in part:
Grignon appealed to the Board of Review, which affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal.
In this appeal, Grignon argues that the Board's decision was not supported by sufficient evidence to support its findings, requiring its reversal. We disagree.
The scope of our review in an appeal from a final decision of an administrative agency is limited.
The record supports a finding that Grignon was a concerned employee who harbored doubts about a lack of financial transparency of the NJAS/FAH records. Although she was not satisfied with her employer's response to her concern and request for information, the conditions described fall short of the "working conditions . . . shown to be abnormal or [that] affect health" which will constitute good cause for leaving work voluntarily.
Affirmed.