ATLANTIC FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. VS. BOARD OF REVIEW,Â(BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1942-15T4 ATLANTIC FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW and NICHOLAS V. MARTINEZ, Respondents. _______________________________ Submitted July 18, 2017 – Decided October 30, 2017 Before Judges Ostrer and Leone. On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 043-947. Kenneth A. Olsen, attorney for appellant. Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Adam K. Phelps, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent Nicholas V. Martinez has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM The substantive issue in this unemployment compensation appeal is whether Nicholas V. Martinez quit his job as a truck driver for Atlantic Freight Systems, Inc., or whether Atlantic fired him. The Appeal Tribunal believed Atlantic's representatives, who said he quit. The Board of Review reversed, after crediting Martinez, who said he was fired in retaliation for filing a wage and hour complaint against his employer. The Board relied on various documentary records that it found corroborated Martinez's version. The Board is empowered to review the Tribunal's decision de novo, Messick v. Bd. of Review, 420 N.J. Super. 321, 330 (App. Div. 2011), and we defer to the Board's decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or is unsupported by substantial credible evidence. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). However, we decline to decide that issue on the record before us, because of a procedural issue: Atlantic claims it did not receive notice of Martinez's appeal to the Board, until the Board ruled against it. Atlantic's counsel then wrote to the Board, asking it to reopen the record, to consider its arguments and various supporting materials. However, the Board took no further action. Fundamental to due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard. Rivera v. Bd. of Review, 127 N.J. 578, 583 (1992). On 2 A-1942-15T4 appeal to us, the Board does not present any evidence that Atlantic actually received notice, nor does it defend its evident refusal to consider Atlantic's post-decision submission. We therefore vacate the Board's decision and remand for consideration of Atlantic's opposition to the appeal. We do not retain jurisdiction. 3 A-1942-15T4