ÿWPCÍ ÷v@$…“4?Ò’l±ŠÓ{Â<_>Êš§õ-ÑÝÛ'aƒÝüÖœGŽÿD„Ì}ß‘DŠÖeC˜g5Ê”Å{¬³¸¾r¡«—•¸¥¸~ŒéeíÆqÛúã…Œ•ÖB:7 rÜW€ØHé… ¼Aó¸×Ãï^Mt?{áÎcUÚÌ»22=~Ë6­küS$¯ÅÁ4“xÅ|Ô}—gpY?¡jƒ`6>äÝ]úׇnø¼Ù’Cf\Hæò•öâ†jÄÒÍáJd7E ˆÆ`M¡W•òò’ˆ Z£ ½ôiã£]nbs²~ߣU{ƒõ0:¡À/­g‰ dÀbC©%fSÓýfjùc×wR÷¤bYžÇ†0zWå@V7«“!ùHF©WqÂÏÕJjF;*E§öEYgàÖòØÈ–Ê7åÏ„J¨„Ü*ùýîýÚÈÎ÷_2$¾ ù.½bó^MŸ“'…áUYG„ÞãnÈ%Î俶n3nÈc³x9ÑpÚHŸ^þ'Äþ9̶׶I§±ÿ Õ@]“Pt×>ýtÿ™çéwJ¡#®J€’pæSUìùø¢ !:Á"Ÿ-脉„×8†>ʹÄv•l½zo\b@xJ0”LÂU̺ËûÜŒä×@ÏÄ•“b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U=N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U N‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1:÷N1 0D3wEÍNUNd‡²+99^dddddddddddddddddb 0ëÊÊÊÊ Bµµ 0¤Ò D3v D-© 0KÖÖ AS!Æt 0¤: 0DÞ A«"˜HP LaserJet 4Si,ü,,,,,ü0»¤eó(L (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular9?Æ(Hi  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 0Ý ƒRæ+$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ûX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÚ|òXX¥ûÔÔ_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€states€in€its€appellate€brief€that€the€company€is€no€longer€in€business.Ô#†X¥ûXòôÚ|~#Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  ÃÝ ƒRæ+$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ûX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÚ|òXX¥ûÔOne€claimant,€Wayne€F.€Arnold,€filed€his€complaint€in€Washington€County€Chancery€Court€on€NovemberÐ ° Ð25,€1996.€€The€rest€of€the€claimants€filed€a€complaint€on€that€same€date€in€Carter€County€Chancery€Court.€€The€CarterÐ xÈ ÐChancery€Court€filed€an€Order€consolidating€all€three€cases,€i.e.,€the€Arnold€appeal€of€the€termination€of€benefits,€theÐ @ Ðremaining€employeesðð€appeal€of€the€termination€of€benefits,€and€the€employerððs€appeal€of€the€award€of€benefits.Ô#†X¥ûXòôÚ|~#Ô Ñ ° Ñ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular }Ý ƒRæ+$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ûX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÚ|òXX¥ûÔThe€Chancellorððs€Memorandum€was€unclear€as€to€disposition,€resulting€in€requests€by€the€parties€for€aÐ ° Ðclarification.€€The€Chancellor€then€issued€a€revised€Memorandum€which€restated€the€facts€the€Court€had€found€butÐ xÈ Ðclarified€the€disposition€by€ordering€that€ð ðthe€Board€of€Review€is€affirmed€in€Civil€Action€number€21971€(Carter€CountyÐ @ ÐChancery€Court)€and€reversed€in€Civil€Action€number€23028€(Carter€County€Chancery€Court)€and€Civil€Action€numberÐ X Ð31265€(Washington€County€Chancery€Court€at€Johnson€City.)€€The€Petitioners€shall€receive€the€unemployment€benefitsÐ Ð  Ðto€which€they€are€entitled.ðð€Ô#†X¥ûXòôÚ|~#Ô !Ý ƒRæ+$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ûX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÚ|òXX¥ûÔAlthough€not€necessary€to€our€decision,€we€reviewed€the€facts€as€found€by€the€Board€of€Review€in€Ô_ÔGreenwellÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðand€note,€as€did€the€Trial€Court,€that€there€is€substantial€and€material€evidence€to€support€the€decision€of€the€Board€ofÐ xÈ ÐReview€in€Ô_ÔGreenwellÔ_Ô.Ô#†X¥ûXòôÚ|~#Ô TÝ ƒRæ+$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ûX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÚ|òXX¥ûÔThe€Appeals€Tribunalððs€decision€had€contained€the€exact€same€ð ðFindings€of€Factðð€section,€but€with€theÐ ° Ðopposite€result.Ô#†X¥ûXòôÚ|~#Ô€- ù-(|G2æ+$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€½ä»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¥ûX»»Ô d(|3,$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€½ä»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3,$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€½ä»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€½ä»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼½ä»»»ÔÑ€Oa Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ È ÐÓ  ÓJune,€2000€SessionÔ‡X¥ûX»¼½äÔÐ à0 ÐÓ;ÓÌò òÔ#†¼½ä»XX¥ûY#ÔÓ  ÓWATAUGA€INDUSTRIES,€INC.€€v.€HARRY€W.€GREENWELL,€et€alÔ‡X¥ûX»¼½äÔó óÐ è8 ÐÓÄÓÌÌà@: : ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Carter€CountyˆÐ à 0 Ðà@P P ìàNo.€23028,€31265€and€21971€€€€€€G.€Richard€Johnson,€ChancellorˆÐ Ð  ÐÌÌÔ_Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÔ_Ôà h àFILED€JULY€19,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` A߈Ð à  ÐÌà@¶¶ìàNo.€E1999„00699„COA„R3„CV€ˆÐ ß  ÐÌßA€V) °°` då2E<n` AßÐ o¿ Ðó óÌÌÔ#†¼½ä»XX¥û#ÔÔ€X¥ûX»¼½äÔÔ_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€Industries,€Inc.€appeals€three€cases€consolidated€in€the€Carter€County€Chancery€CourtÐ ^® Ðinvolving€unemployment€benefits€awarded€to€certain€of€its€employees.€€In€the€first€caseÐ Nž Ð(ð ðÔ_ÔGreenwellÔ_Ôðð),€the€Board€of€Review€of€the€Department€of€Labor,€Employment€Security€Commission,Ð >Ž Ðfound€the€employees€were€entitled€to€unemployment€compensation€after€they€were€locked€out€of€theÐ .~ Ðplant€by€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€during€a€labor€dispute.€The€Chancery€Court€upheld€that€decision.€€Watauga€appealsÐ n Ðthe€Chancery€Courtððs€judgment.€€The€Chancery€Court€lacked€jurisdiction€to€hear€Wataugaððs€PetitionÐ ^ Ðfor€Certiorari€because€Watauga€did€not€file€its€Complaint€in€Chancery€Court€within€the€statutorilyÐ þN Ðmandated€30€days€after€the€decision€of€the€Board€of€Review€became€final.€Therefore,€we€vacate€theÐ î> ÐChancery€Courtððs€judgment€in€Ô_ÔGreenwellÔ_Ô€and€dismiss€Wataugaððs€Petition.€In€the€remaining€twoÐ Þ. Ðcases€(ð ðAndersonðð),€the€Board€of€Review€found€the€employees€refused€Wataugaððs€€reasonable€offersÐ Î Ðof€return€to€work,€and€€terminated€their€unemployment€benefits€as€of€the€date€of€that€refusal.€€TheÐ ¾ ÐChancery€Court€reversed€and€held€that€the€employees€were€entitled€to€continued€benefits€becauseÐ ®þ ÐWataugaððs€offer€of€a€return€to€work€was€not€reasonable.€€Watauga€appeals€the€Chancery€CourtððsÐ ž î Ðdecision.€€We€hold€that€the€Chancery€Court€erred€in€reversing€the€Boardððs€decision€as€the€recordÐ Ž!Þ  Ðcontains€substantial€and€material€evidence€supporting€the€Boardððs€decision,€and,€therefore,€weÐ ~"Î! Ðreverse€the€decision€of€the€Chancery€Court€in€Anderson.Ð n#¾" ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Ð N%ž $ ÐVacated€in€Part,€Reversed€in€Part;€and€Ô_ÔCaseRemandedÔ_Ô.ó óÐ >&Ž!% ÐÓ® ÓÌòòD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.óó,€joined,Ð (n#' Ðand€òòHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€óó€filed€a€concurring€opinion.Ð )^$( ÐÌMichael€S.€Lattier,€Kingsport,€for€the€Appellant,€Watauga€Industries,€Inc.Ð î*>&* ÐÌD.€Bruce€Shine,€Kingsport,€for€the€Appellees,€Harry€W.€Greenwell,€et€al.Ð Î,(, ÐÐ ¾-)-ý ÐPaul€G.€Summers€and€Douglas€Earl€Dimond,€Nashville,€for€the€Appellee,€Commissioner€of€theÐ ° ÐTennessee€Department€of€Labor€and€Workforce€Development.Ð  ð ÐÌÓÓà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ €Ð Ðà@ÛÛ%ìàò òòòBackgroundóóó óˆÐ ` ° ÐÓÓà  àà ` àDuring€the€first€week€of€January€1994,€Watauga€Industries,€Inc.€(ð ðÔ_ÔWataugaÔ_Ôðð)Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€andÐ @  Ðits€employeesðð€union,€the€United€Textile€Worker€of€America€(ð ðUnionðð),€attempted€to€negotiate€a€newÐ 0 € Ðlabor€contract€to€replace€the€contract€that€was€due€to€expire€on€Monday,€January€10,€1994.€€OnÐ  p  ÐSaturday,€January€8,€1994,€the€Union€voted€not€to€accept€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ôððs€offered€contract.€€On€Sunday,Ð `  ÐJanuary€9,€1994,€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€notified€its€employees€that€the€plant€would€be€closed€for€one€day€forÐ P  Ðmaintenance,€beginning€at€11:00€that€evening,€through€Monday,€January€10,€1994,€the€last€day€ofÐ ð@  Ðthe€expiring€contract.€€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€then€shut€down€the€plant€during€that€period.Ð à0  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€Monday,€January€10,€1994,€while€the€plant€was€shut€down,€the€Union€voted€toÐ À Ðstrike.€€In€a€letter€to€striking€employees€dated€January€12,€1994,€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€unilaterally€implementedÐ ° Ðthe€first€year€of€its€final€proposal€and€informed€the€employees€that€they€would€be€permanentlyÐ  ð Ðreplaced€if€they€did€not€return€to€work€within€two€days.€€The€Union€and€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€exchangedÐ à Ðcorrespondence.€€While€some€of€the€employees€returned€to€work,€many€did€not,€and€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€hiredÐ €Ð Ðpermanent€replacements€for€those€who€did€not€return.€€Those€workers€who€did€not€return€to€workÐ pÀ Ðapplied€for€unemployment€compensation€benefits€from€the€Department€of€Employment€SecurityÐ `° Ð(ð ðthe€Departmentðð).€€Ð P  ÐÌà  àà ` à€The€union€contract€specified€that€a€plant€closing€for€economic€reasons€could€not€beÐ 0€ Ðconsidered€a€lockout.€€€€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€contended€that€the€plant€closing€on€January€9,€1994€was€occasionedÐ  p Ðby€€economic€reasons€and€therefore€was€not€a€lockout.€€The€Departmentððs€initial€determination€wasÐ ` Ðthat€the€closing€was€a€lockout,€and€the€employees€were€awarded€unemployment€benefits.€€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_ÔÐ P Ðappealed€the€initial€determination€to€the€Appeals€Tribunal.€€At€the€hearing€before€the€AppealsÐ ð@ ÐTribunal,€the€President€of€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€testified€that€he€closed€the€plant€for€several€reasons,€includingÐ à0 Ðvandalism,€the€need€to€replace€missing€formulas€that€had€disappeared€during€the€vandalism€andÐ Ð  Ðwhich€were€essential€for€production,€and€the€Unionððs€vote€not€to€accept€the€new€contract.€€He€arguedÐ À! Ðagain€that€the€reasons€for€closing€were€economic,€not€a€lockout.€€€Various€employees€testified€thatÐ °"  Ðdamaged€equipment€at€the€plant€predated€the€labor€dispute€and€was€the€result€of€chronic€and€routineÐ  #ð! Ðmaintenance€problems,€not€vandalism,€and€that€the€plant€closing€was€a€lockout.€€The€AppealÐ $à" ÐTribunal,€in€its€decision€of€March€28,€1994,€which€was€adopted€and€affirmed€by€the€Board€of€ReviewÐ €%Ð # Ðon€August€23,€1994,€found:Ð p&À!$ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFINDINGS€OF€FACT:€The€116€claimants€in€this€case€are€membersÐ P( #& Ðof€the€United€Textile€Workers€of€America,€Leeððs€Dye€Workers€LocalÐ @)$' Ð843€who€were€last€employed€at€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€Industries.€€The€existingÐ ° Ðcontract€between€the€union€and€the€employer€was€scheduled€to€expireÐ  ð Ðat€midnight€on€Monday,€January€10,€1994,€and€negotiations€on€a€newÐ à Ðcontract€had€been€taking€place€since€December,€1993.€€On€January€7,Ð €Ð Ð1994,€negotiations€occurred€at€which€the€employer€presented€its€finalÐ pÀ Ðoffer.€€No€consideration€was€being€given€to€an€extension€of€theÐ ` ° Ðexisting€contract.€€On€January€8,€1994,€the€union€voted€to€reject€thatÐ P   Ðoffer.€€The€employer€then€decided€to€close€the€plant€for€the€last€dayÐ @  Ðof€production€that€remained€under€the€existing€contact€[sic].€€ThisÐ 0 € Ðaction€would€not€have€been€taken€€if€the€union€had€voted€to€accept€theÐ  p  Ðnew€contract.€€The€next€scheduled€shift€was€to€begin€at€10:50€p.m.€onÐ `  ÐJanuary€9,€1994.€€Employees€were€notified€that€the€plant€would€beÐ P  Ðclosed€on€January€10,€1994,€including€the€third€shift€on€January€9,Ð ð@  Ð1994,€to€avoid€further€theft€of€company€property€and/or€vandalism.€Ð à0  ÐThe€employerððs€attorney€also€notified€the€unionððs€internationalÐ Ð  Ðrepresentative€that€the€employer€did€not€consider€this€to€be€a€lockout.€Ð À ÐOn€January€10,€1994,€the€union€voted€on€the€question€of€whether€toÐ ° Ðaccept€the€employerððs€proposal,€or€strike€at€the€expiration€of€theÐ  ð Ðcontract.€€The€vote€was€to€strike.€€The€unionððs€representativeÐ à Ðinformed€the€employerððs€general€manager€of€the€vote€and€askedÐ €Ð Ðwhether€the€employees€should€report€to€work€at€10:50€p.m.€onÐ pÀ ÐJanuary€10,€1994€for€the€period€of€time€remaining€under€the€existingÐ `° Ðcontract.€€The€general€manager€informed€him€that€the€employeesÐ P  Ðshould€not€report€for€work€for€that€time.€€The€employer€would€haveÐ @ Ðresumed€operations€if€the€union€had€accepted€the€proposal.€€OnÐ 0€ ÐJanuary€11,€1994,€the€employer€notified€union€members€that€it€wasÐ  p Ðimplementing€the€first€year€of€its€final€proposal,€and€gave€theÐ ` Ðemployees€two€days€from€the€receipt€of€the€notice€to€return€to€workÐ P Ðor€risk€being€permanently€replaced.€€The€employer€began€hiringÐ ð@ Ðreplacement€workers€after€those€two€days.€€On€January€23,€1994,€theÐ à0 Ðunion€began€offering€to€accept€the€terms€of€the€employerððs€finalÐ Ð  Ðproposal.€€The€employer€informed€the€union€that€it€considered€theÐ À! Ðreplacement€workers€that€had€been€hired€to€be€permanent€employees.€Ð °"  ÐOn€January€29,€1994,€the€union€voted€to€accept€the€employerððs€finalÐ  #ð! Ðproposal.€€The€employer€agreed€to€re„call€eleven€employees€and€toÐ $à" Ðplace€the€remainder€on€a€preferential€re„call€list.€€The€union€did€notÐ €%Ð # Ðaccept€these€terms€and€picketing€has€continued.Ðp&À!$` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àCONCLUSIONS€OF€LAW:€Under€TCA€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“½,#Ô€50„7„303(a)(4)€anÐ P( #& Ðindividual€is€disqualified€from€receiving€unemploymentÐ P) $' Ðcompensation€benefits€ð ðFor€any€week€with€respect€to€which€theÐ @*%( Ðcommissioner€finds€that€his€total€or€partial€unemployment€is€due€toÐ 0+€&) Ða€labor€dispute,€other€than€a€lockout€which€is€in€active€progress€at€theÐ ° Ðfactory,€establishment,€or€other€premises€at€which€he€is€or€was€lastÐ  ð Ðemployed.ðð€€The€Appeals€Tribunal€finds€that€on€January€9,€1994,€theÐ à Ðemployer€shut€down€its€operations€and€conditioned€a€resumption€ofÐ €Ð Ðwork€on€the€employeeððs€acceptance€of€a€contract€proposal€whichÐ pÀ Ðdiffered€from€the€existing€contract.€€This€is€a€lockout€within€theÐ ` ° Ðmeaning€of€TCA€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“E0#Ô€€50„7„303(a)(4)€and€is€not€disqualifying.€€TheÐ P   Ðsubsequent€strike€vote€does€not€change€the€nature€of€this€dispute€inÐ P   Ðview€of€the€fact€that€the€employer€continued€to€condition€a€return€toÐ @  Ðwork€on€the€acceptance€of€its€proposal.€€While€a€substantial€amountÐ 0 €  Ðof€evidence€was€received€concerning€the€motivations€of€the€partiesÐ  p  Ðwith€respect€to€actions€that€were€taken€at€various€points€during€theseÐ `  Ðevents,€the€Appeals€Tribunal€does€not€find€the€evidence€to€beÐ P  Ðsufficiently€convincing€or€persuasive€to€alter€the€essential€facts€setÐ ð@  Ðforth€above.€€The€agency€decisions€which€approved€these€claims€areÐ à0  Ðaffirmed.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€August€24,€1994,€Watauga€wrote€a€letter€to€the€local€office€of€the€Department,Ð ° Ðnotifying€it€that€ð ðthe€following€individuals€were€given€offers€to€return€to€their€same€jobs,€on€theÐ  ð Ðindicated€dates,€and€refused€those€offers.ðð€€The€letter€listed€116€employees,€the€dates€they€wereÐ à Ðoffered€returns€to€work,€and€stated€that€ð ðthe€benefits€paid€to€those€employees€should€be€recoveredÐ €Ð Ðfrom€them€and€appropriately€credited€to€Watauga€Industriesðð€account.ðð€€à  àÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€August€26,€1994,€Watauga€filed€a€Petition€to€Rehear,€alleging€that€ð ðnew€andÐ P  Ðadditional€evidence€has€occurred€since€the€March€28,€1994€decision€of€the€Appeals€Tribunal€in€thisÐ @ Ðcause;ðð€i.e.,€that€ð ðunconditional€offers€of€reinstatement€of€striking€employees€at€Watauga€Industries,Ð 0€ ÐInc.€have€been€made€by€the€Company.ðð€€Watauga€listed€the€names€of€the€employees€and€the€datesÐ  p Ðeach€was€offered€reinstatement,€and€averred€that€of€the€116€employees€who€were€offeredÐ ` Ðreinstatement,€only€ten€went€back€to€work.€€Watauga€argued€that€the€refusal€of€the€employees€toÐ P Ðreturn€to€work€occurred€following€the€March€28,€1994€decision€of€the€Appeals€Tribunal,€and€has€ð ðaÐ ð@ Ðdirect€bearing€on€the€eligibility€of€the€claimants€in€this€cause,€which€could€have€been€neither€knownÐ à 0 Ðnor€anticipated€by€the€Appeals€Tribunal€at€the€time€of€its€[March€28,€1994]€decision.ðð€€WataugaÐ Ð!  Ðasked€the€Board€of€Review€to€grant€further€hearing.€€The€Petition€to€Re„Hear€nowhere€mentions€theÐ À"  ÐAugust€23,€1994€decision€by€the€Board€of€Review.Ð °#! ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Board€of€Review€denied€the€employerððs€Petition€to€Re„Hear€on€October€11,€1994.€Ð %à # ÐThe€denial€stated,€in€part:Ð €&Ð!$ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€issues€raised€by€the€employer€in€its€petition€to€rehear€are€newÐ `(°#& Ðeligibility€issues€that€were€not€before€the€Agency€or€this€boardÐ P) $' Ðpreviously€in€the€record€of€this€appeal.€€To€this€point,€the€issue€in€thisÐ @*%( Ðappeal€has€been€whether€the€claimants€were€unemployed€due€to€aÐ 0+€&) Ðð ðlockoutðð€as€provided€in€T.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“]=#Ô€50„7„303€(a)€(4).€€The€employerÐ ° Ðnow€seeks€to€present€evidence€that€the€claimants€should€beÐ ° Ðdisqualified€because€of€an€offer€to€return€to€work€after€the€time€theyÐ  ð Ðfiled€these€claims€for€employment€benefits.€€We€believe€this€is€aÐ à Ðsufficiently€separate€issue€that€it€should€be€adjudicated€separatelyÐ €Ð Ðwith€its€own€accompanying€appeal€rights.€€Therefore,€the€employerÐ p À Ðshould€raise€this€separate€issue€with€the€Agency€at€a€local€AgencyÐ ` ° Ðoffice€for€adjudication.€€ÐP  ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àBy€letter€dated€January€10,€1994€[sic€„€1995],€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô,€by€counsel,€informed€the€Ð 0 €  ÐÌoutgoing€and€incoming€Commissioners€of€the€Department:Ð `  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€purpose€of€this€letter€is€to€bring€to€your€attention€our€very€lateÐ ð@  Ðreceipt€on€òòJanuary€5,€1995óó,€of€two€separate€decisions€made€by€theÐ à0  ÐBoard€of€Review€in€the€above€referenced€matter.€€These€decisions€byÐ Ð  Ðthe€Board€of€Review€were€dated€August€23,€1994€and€October€11,Ð À Ð1994.€[Emphasis€in€original]а` x` x ÐÌÔ_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€recited€a€history€of€the€case€and€then€informed€the€Commissioners:Ð à ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAs€a€result€of€never€having€received€the€Boardððs€decisions€prior€toÐ pÀ ÐJanuary€5,€1995,€Employer€and€its€counsel€expect€the€TennesseeÐ `° ÐDepartment€of€Employment€Security€will€treat€this€date€as€the€date€ofÐ P  Ðmailing€for€both€decisions:€one€being€that€the€claimants€should€beÐ @ Ðqualified€for€benefits€due€to€a€ð ðlockout,ðð€the€second€being€the€BoardððsÐ 0€ Ðdenial€of€the€request€for€rehearing€to€present€evidence€that€theÐ  p Ðclaimants€have€been€given€numerous€opportunities€to€return€to€workÐ ` Ðand€have€refused€to€do€so.€€Watauga€Industries€intends€to€file€forÐ P Ðjudicial€review€of€the€Boardððs€decision€in€accordance€with€T.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“mF#ÔÐ ð@ Ð50„7„304(i)€immediately.Ðð @` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àWatauga€filed€a€Petition€for€Certiorari€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Carter€County€onÐ Ð"   ÐJanuary€20,€1995,€asking€for€review€of€the€decision€of€the€Board€of€Review.€€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€conceded€inÐ À#! Ðthat€Petition€that€ð ðthis€Petition€should€normally€have€been€filed€earlier,ðð€but€stated€that€ð ðneitherÐ °$ " Ð[Watauga]€nor€their€counsel€received€said€decisions,ðð€and€that€ð ðthis€Petition€is€therefore€timelyÐ  %ð # Ðfiled.ðð€€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€filed€the€Affidavits€of€Sam€Acquaviva,€Secretary/Treasurer,€and€William€E.Ð &à!$ ÐAndersen,€counsel€for€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô,€stating€that€they€ð ðhad€received€no€correspondence€whatsoever€fromÐ €'Ð"% Ðthe€Tennessee€Department€of€Employment€Security€regarding€these€two€decisions€(i.e.,€the€BoardÐ p(À#& Ðof€Reviewððs€adoption€of€the€Appeals€Tribunalððs€decision€and€the€Board€of€Reviewððs€denial€ofÐ `)°$' ÐWataugaððs€Petition€to€Re„Hear)€prior€to€January€5,€1995.ðð€€Ð P* %( Ðà  àà ` àÐ @+&) Ðà  àà ` à€The€incoming€Commissioner€of€the€Department€wrote€a€letter€to€counsel€for€WataugaÐ ° Ðon€January€27,€1995€informing€him€that€the€Board€of€Review€had€advised€the€CommissionerÐ  ð Ðconcerning€Wataugaððs€complaints€about€(1)€the€Departmentððs€failure€to€consider€the€issue€of€offersÐ à Ðof€reinstatement€to€the€employees,€and€(2)€the€charge€that€counsel€for€Watauga€did€not€receive€theÐ €Ð Ðdecisions€of€the€Board€of€Review€mailed€on€August€23,€1994€and€October€11,€1994€until€JanuaryÐ pÀ Ð5,€1995,€and€asking€that€the€Agency€treat€January€5,€1995€as€the€date€of€mailing€of€those€twoÐ ` ° Ðdecisions€for€purposes€of€a€petition€for€judicial€review.€€The€Commissioner€informed€counsel€forÐ P   ÐWatauga:Ð @  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€Board€of€Review€records€indicate€that€these€decisions€wereÐ  p  Ðtimely€mailed€to€you€and€your€client;€therefore,€if€you€file€for€judicialÐ `  Ðreview,€they€have€indicated€to€me€that€they€will€not€concede€that€it€isÐ P  Ðtimely.€€They€prefer€to€have€the€Court€consider€all€the€facts€andÐ ð@  Ðdecide€the€issue.€€Ðà0 ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€April€13,€1995,€Harry€Greenwell,€et€al,€(employees)€filed€an€Answer,€firstÐ À Ðasserting€that€€Watauga€failed€to€file€its€appeal€of€the€decision€of€the€Department€in€a€timely€mannerÐ ° Ðas€required€by€T.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“ÃQ#Ô€50„7„304(i)(1).€€The€employees€then€answered€that€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€had€not€allegedÐ  ð Ðfacts€sufficient€to€demonstrate€that€the€decision€of€the€Board€of€Review€was€arbitrary,€capricious,Ð  ð Ðor€characterized€by€abuse€of€discretion,€and€that€the€decision€of€the€Board€of€Review€was€supportedÐ à Ðby€substantial€and€material€evidence€and€a€reasonable€basis€in€law.€€€Thereafter,€several€continuancesÐ €Ð Ðin€the€case€were€granted€by€the€Trial€Court.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€November€13,€1995,€the€Commissioner€filed€its€Answer,€first€asserting€thatÐ P  ÐWatauga€failed€to€file€its€Petition€for€Writ€of€Certiorari€within€the€time€frame€provided€by€T.C.A.Ð @ ÐÔ‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“'U#Ô€50„7„304(i)(1),€then€further€answering€Wataugaððs€Petition.€€On€March€25,€1996,€the€CommissionerÐ 0€ Ðfiled€a€Motion€to€Dismiss€the€Petition€for€Writ€of€Certiorari€ð ðon€account€of€the€failure€of€theÐ 0€ ÐPetitioner€to€timely€file€the€appeal€as€required€by€T.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“—V#Ô€50„7„304(i).ðð€€In€its€accompanyingÐ  p ÐMemorandum€of€Law,€the€Commissioner€argued€that€ð ð[t]he€deadlines€for€seeking€administrative€andÐ  p Ðjudicial€review€of€the€Agency€decisions€contained€in€T.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“ËW#Ô€50„7„304(b)(1),€(c)(1),€(h)€and€(i)€are,Ð  ` Ðas€a€matter€of€law,€jurisdictional€in€nature€and€cannot€be€waived€by€the€Court.ðð€€The€following€day,Ð !` ÐMarch€26,€1995,€the€Commissioner€filed€a€Motion€asking€the€Trial€Judge€to€recuse€himself,€and€theÐ "P Ðemployees€filed€a€Trial€Brief€insisting,€in€part,€that€Wataugaððs€Petition€for€Certiorari€could€not€beÐ ð"@  Ðmaintained€in€Chancery€Court€because€the€time€limitations€within€which€to€file€the€Petition€wereÐ à#0! Ðjurisdictional,€proof€of€mailing€such€notices€was€sufficient,€and€proof€of€receipt€was€not€required.€Ð Ð$ " ÐOn€March€29,€1995,€the€Department€employee€responsible€for€mailing€the€Departmentððs€decisionsÐ À%!# Ðfiled€an€Affidavit€stating€that€he€mailed€the€Board€of€Review€decisions€to€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€and€its€counselÐ °&"$ Ðon€August€23,€1994€and€October€11,€1994.€€On€April€3,€1996,€Watauga€filed€a€ð ðReply€Brief€ofÐ  'ð"% ÐPetitioner,ðð€denying€that€Watauga€or€its€counsel€received€the€August€23,€1994€or€October€11,€1994Ð (à#& Ðnotices€from€the€Department.€€The€following€day,€Watauga€filed€a€document€styled€ð ðBrief€ofÐ €)Ð$' ÐPetitioner€in€Opposition€to€the€Motion€of€the€[Department]€to€Dismiss€the€Petition€for€Writ€ofÐ p*À%( ÐCertiorari.ðð€€On€April€29,€1995,€the€Trial€Judge€recused€himself€from€the€case,€and€on€July€11,€1995,Ð `+°&) Ðthe€parties€filed€an€ð ðAgreed€Order€of€Continuance€on€Motion€of€the€Court.ðð€€That€Order,€signed€byÐ ° Ða€new€Chancellor,€stated:Ð  ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€Court€will€review€the€record€and€briefs€submitted€in€this€matterÐ €Ð Ðby€the€parties€and,€if€the€Court€determines€that€a€hearing€on€thisÐ pÀ Ðmatter€would€be€helpful€to€it€in€reaching€a€decision,€the€Court€willÐ ` ° Ðorder€a€hearing€at€that€point€in€time.€€If,€however,€the€CourtÐ P   Ðdetermines€that€a€hearing€is€unnecessary,€it€will€decide€this€matter€onÐ @  Ðthe€briefs€submitted.Ð0 €` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Chancellor€joined€this€case,€ð ðÔ_ÔGreenwellÔ_Ôðð,€with€the€two€cases,€ð ðAndersonðð,€whichÐ `  Ðwe€discuss€below€and€rendered€his€Memorandum€Opinion€and€Order€in€all€cases€on€January€8,€1999.€Ð P  ÐAs€to€this€case,€Ô_ÔGreenwellÔ_Ô,€the€Chancellorððs€Memorandum€Opinion€and€Order€did€not€address€theÐ ð@  Ðissue€of€timeliness€of€Wataugaððs€Petition€for€Writ€of€Certiorari.€€The€Chancellor€affirmed€theÐ à0  Ðdecision€of€the€Board€of€Review€that€the€employees€were€entitled€to€benefits€and€decided€the€otherÐ Ð  Ðtwo€cases€as€discussed€below.€€Ð À ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€second€and€third€cases,€ð ðAndersonðð,€consolidated€in€this€appeal€involve€theÐ  ð Ðemployeesðð€refusal€to€return€to€work€after€the€lockout.€€As€instructed€by€the€NLRB,€Watauga€sentÐ à Ðletters€to€the€employees€between€May€17,€1994€and€August€10,€1994,€offering€to€return€them€toÐ €Ð Ðwork.€€It€appears€from€the€record€that€only€ten€employees€returned€to€work.€€Watauga€then€informedÐ pÀ Ðthe€Department€that€the€non„returning€employees€were€no€longer€entitled€to€unemployment€benefitsÐ `° Ðbecause€of€their€refusal€to€return€to€work.€€The€Department€sent€questionnaires€to€the€employeesÐ P  Ðabout€the€reasons€for€their€failure€to€return€to€work.€€The€employees€answered€that€they€did€not€returnÐ @ Ðto€work€because€they€had€no€union€contract€and€feared€violence€on€the€picket€line€and€retaliation.€Ð 0€ ÐThe€Department€determined€that€the€employees€who€did€not€return€to€work€were€no€longer€entitledÐ  p Ðto€unemployment€benefits€because€they€had€refused€an€offer€of€suitable€work.€€The€Appeals€TribunalÐ ` Ðconducted€a€hearing€on€April€6,€1995€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€claimants€had€refused,€withoutÐ P Ðgood€cause,€an€offer€of€suitable€work,€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“ñh#Ô€50„7„303(a)(3).€€The€Appeal€TribunalÐ ð@ Ðmailed€its€decision€to€the€58€claimants€on€May€26,€1995,€reversing€the€Departmentððs€determinationÐ ð@ Ðand€granting€benefits€to€the€claimants.€€Watauga€then€appealed€the€decision€of€the€Appeals€TribunalÐ à 0 Ðto€the€Board€of€Review,€which€reversed€the€Appeals€Tribunal€and€denied€benefits€to€the€claimants.€Ð Ð!  ÐThe€Board€of€Review€held:Ð À"  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFINDINGS€OF€FACT:€After€carefully€considering€the€entire€recordÐ  $ð" Ðin€this€case,€the€Board€of€Review€finds€that€the€facts€found€by€theÐ %à # ÐAppeals€Tribunal€accurately€summarize€the€circumstances€leading€toÐ €&Ð!$ Ðthis€claimantððs€separation€from€employment.€€We€hereby€adopt€themÐ p'À"% Ðfor€the€purposes€of€this€decision.€€Those€findings€were:€€As€of€May€5,Ð `(°#& Ð1994,€the€employer€was€instructed€by€the€NLRB€in€a€memoÐ P) $' Ðdesignated€as€a€step€toward€settling€a€complaint€to€offer€immediateÐ @*%( Ðrecall€to€their€former€jobs€to€22€employees.€€They€were€furtherÐ 0+€&) Ðinstructed€to€make€a€new€offer€to€the€next€employee€in€the€seniorityÐ ° Ðeligibility€list€if€the€offer€was€rejected,€or€there€was€no€responseÐ  ð Ðwithin€two€weeks.€€On€May€17,€1994,€the€employer€sent€twenty„twoÐ à Ðemployees€letters.€€June€1,€1994,€twenty€more€employees€were€sentÐ €Ð Ðletters;€June€15,€sixteen€letters€were€sent;€June€29,€thirteen€lettersÐ pÀ Ðwere€sent;€July€13,€thirteen€letters€were€sent;€July€27,€sixteen€lettersÐ ` ° Ðwere€sent,€and€August€10,€1994,€sixteen€letters€were€sent.€€ThirteenÐ P   Ðemployees€responded€and€returned€to€work.€€The€remainingÐ @  Ðemployees€received€the€letters.€€They€did€not€respond€because€theyÐ 0 € Ðunderstood€no€contract€was€signed€between€the€employer€and€theÐ  p  Ðunion.€€This€dispute€was€hostile€and€bitter,€and€there€was€ongoingÐ `  Ðlitigation€and€involvement€with€the€NLRB.€€These€specific€lettersÐ P  Ðoffering€a€return€to€former€jobs€followed€two€earlier€more€generalÐ ð@  Ðoffers,€one€January€12,€1994,€and€one€February€8,€1994.€€ClaimantsÐ à0  Ðunderstood€from€those€earlier€letters€they€had€been€replaced€byÐ Ð  Ðpermanent€replacement€employees€and€were€no€longer€employed.€Ð À ÐThey€also€understood€in€accepting€this€offer,€they€would€have€to€crossÐ ° Ðthe€picket€line€and€would€be€working€in€an€ordinary€at€will€statusÐ  ð Ðsubject€to€discharge€without€cause€or€recourse.€€They€were€advised€byÐ à Ðunion€officials€not€to€accept€the€offer.ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àCONCLUSIONS€OF€LAW:€The€Board€of€Review€concludes€that€theÐ `° Ðevidence€is€sufficient€to€support€that€the€claimants€refused€an€offer€ofÐ P  Ðsuitable€work€as€contemplated€by€T.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“…u#Ô€50„7„303(a)(3).€€TheÐ @ ÐNational€Labor€Relations€Board€required€that€the€employer€make€thisÐ @ Ðoffer€to€reinstate€the€claimants€to€their€former€positions.€€TheÐ 0€ Ðevidence€in€the€record€does€not€support€that€the€circumstances€wereÐ  p Ðso€bad€that€the€jobs€would€be€unsuitable.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ð`` x` x Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àAs€stated,€the€three€cases€were€consolidated€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Carter€County,׃H×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ð@ Ðwhich€then€had€before€it€the€Boardððs€decision€to€award€unemployment€benefits€to€the€employeesÐ à 0 Ðbecause€of€the€lockout€and€the€Boardððs€decision€thereafter€to€terminate€those€benefits€€of€theÐ Ð!  Ðemployees€who€refused€an€offer€of€suitable€work.€€As€previously€stated,€the€Chancellor€reversed€theÐ À"  Ðâ âBoard€in€Anderson€and€found€that€the€initial€award€of€benefits€to€the€claimants€was€proper€and€thatÐ °#! ÐÔ_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€had€not€offered€the€employees€a€return€to€suitable€work.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ° Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àOn€August€5,€1999,€Watauga€appealed€to€this€Court.€€The€Attorney€General€filed€aÐ à ÐNotice€of€Appearance€representing€the€Department€in€this€appeal€and€shortly€thereafter€filed€anÐ €Ð Ðagreed€Motion€and€Memorandum€of€Law€requesting€that€the€entire€record€of€the€Department€be€filedÐ pÀ Ðin€this€appeal.€Ð ` ° ÐÌà@ìì*ìàò òòòˆÌÓ  ÓDiscussionÐ 0 € ÐÓä|ÓÌà  àà ` àó óóóThe€Trial€Court€had€before€it€three€decisions€of€the€Department€of€Laborððs€Board€ofÐ `  ÐReview.€€The€statutory€standard€of€judicial€review€of€the€decisions€of€the€Departmentððs€Board€ofÐ P  ÐReview€provides€that€the€Trial€Court€can€reverse,€remand€or€modify€the€decision€of€the€Board,€if€theÐ ð@  Ðrights€of€the€Petitioner€were€prejudiced€because€the€administrative€findings,€inferences,€conclusionsÐ à0  Ðor€decisions€were:Ð Ð  ÐÌà0  à(A)à0` (#(#àIn€violation€of€constitutional€or€statutory€provisions;а` (#` (# ÐÌà0  à(B)à0` (#(#àIn€excess€of€the€statutory€authority€of€the€agency;Ðà` (#` (# ÐÌà0  à(C)à0` (#(#àMade€upon€unlawful€procedure;ÐpÀ` (#` (# ÐÌà0  à(D)à0` (#(#àArbitrary€or€capricious€or€characterized€by€abuse€of€discretion€or€clearly€unwarrantedÐ P  Ðexercise€of€discretion;€or€Ð@` (#` (# ÐÌà0  à(E)à0` (#(#àUnsupported€by€evidence€which€is€both€substantial€and€material€in€the€light€of€theÐ  p Ðentire€record.€€Ð`` (#` (# ÐÌà@uu$ìà*€€€*€€€*€€€ˆÐ ð@ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)€€In€determining€the€substantiality€of€evidence€the€chancellor€shallÐ à0 Ðtake€into€account€whatever€in€the€record€fairly€detracts€form€itsÐ Ð  Ðweight,€but€the€chancellor€shall€not€substitute€the€chancellorððsÐ À! Ðjudgment€for€that€of€the€board€of€review€as€to€the€weight€of€theÐ °"  Ðevidence€on€questions€of€fact.€€No€decision€of€the€board€shall€beÐ  #ð! Ðreversed,€remanded€or€modified€by€the€chancellor€unless€for€errorsÐ $à" Ðwhich€affect€the€merits€of€the€final€decision€of€the€board.€€Ð€%Ð #` x` x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(4)€€€.€.€.€.An€appeal€may€be€taken€from€the€judgment€and€decree€ofÐ ° Ðthe€chancery€court€having€jurisdiction€of€these€controversies€to€theÐ  ð Ðcourt€of€appeals€of€Tennessee,€in€the€same€manner,€but€notÐ à Ðinconsistent€with€the€provisions€of€this€chapter,€as€provided€in€otherÐ €Ð Ðcivil€cases.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌT.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“z†#Ô€50„7„304(i).€€Of€these€five€grounds,€only€subsection€(E)€is€at€issue.€€Therefore,€in€reviewingÐ P   Ðthe€Board€of€Reviewððs€decisions,€we€are€limited,€as€was€the€Trial€Court,€to€a€determination€ofÐ P   Ðwhether€there€is€substantial€and€material€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€Boardððs€decision.€Ð @  ÐSubstantial€and€material€evidence€consists€of€relevant€evidence€which€a€reasonable€mind€mightÐ 0 €  Ðaccept€to€support€a€rational€conclusion€and€which€furnishes€a€reasonably€sound€basis€for€the€actionÐ  p  Ðbeing€reviewed.€€òòÔ_ÔFroggeÔ_Ô€v.€Davenport,€óó906€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔS.W.2dÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“^‰#Ô€920,€922€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€If€the€recordÐ `  Ðcontains€such€evidence,€we€are€limited€to€a€review€of€the€questions€of€law€presented.€€òòId.ó󀀀Р`  ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€appeals€the€Chancery€Courtððs€affirming€the€Boardððs€decision€in€Ô_ÔGreenwellÔ_ÔÐ ð@  Ðand€its€finding€ð ðthat€a€lockout€existed€at€the€plant€when€the€employees€went€out€on€strike.ðð€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô,Ð à0 Ðin€Anderson,€appeals€the€Chancery€Courtððs€ð ðoverturning€the€Board€of€Reviewððs€decisionÐ Ð  Ðdisqualifying€claimants€for€benefits€based€on€their€refusal€to€accept€offers€of€suitable€work.ðð€€Ð À ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Commissioner€of€the€Department€of€Labor€asserts€that€ð ðthis€Court€lacksÐ  ð Ðjurisdiction€to€entertain€the€Greenwell€appeal€[the€first€case]€because€Watauga€failed€to€timely€fileÐ à Ða€petition€for€certiorari€in€the€Chancery€Court€seeking€judicial€review€of€the€Boardððs€decision.ðð€€TheÐ €Ð ÐCommissioner€then€argues€that€the€Board€of€Reviewððs€decisions€in€both€Greenwell€and€AndersonÐ pÀ Ðð ðshould€be€affirmed€because€they€are€supported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence€and€have€aÐ `° Ðreasonable€basis€in€the€law.ððÐ P  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€employees€do€not€address€the€timeliness€issue€raised€by€the€Department.€€TheyÐ 0€ Ðargue€that€the€decisions€of€the€Chancery€Court€should€be€affirmed.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€first€address€the€Department€of€Laborððs€issue€that€the€Chancery€Court€had€noÐ  P Ðjurisdiction€to€hear€Wataugaððs€Petition€for€Certiorari€in€Ô_ÔGreenwellÔ_Ô€because€it€was€not€timely€filedÐ ð @ Ðas€required€by€T.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“N‘#Ô€50„7„304.€€€The€employees€raised€this€objection€in€their€Answer€toÐ à!0 ÐWataugaððs€Petition€in€the€Trial€Court,€but€not€on€appeal.€€The€Department€raised€the€objection€inÐ à"0  Ðtheir€Answer€to€the€Petition€and€thereafter,€both€in€the€Trial€Court€and€this€Court.€€The€Trial€CourtÐ Ð# ! Ðnever€specifically€ruled€on€the€objection€to€its€jurisdiction.€€If€we€find€this€argument€to€have€merit,Ð À$ " Ðthen€Wataugaððs€Petition€in€the€Chancery€Court€seeking€review€of€the€Boardððs€determination€that€aÐ °%!# Ðlockout€occurred€must€be€dismissed,€and€the€Board€of€Reviewððs€decision€in€Ô_ÔGreenwellÔ_Ô€is€final.€Ð  &ð!$ ÐT.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“s”#Ô€50„7„304(h)€and€(i)€provide,€as€pertinent:Ð 'à"% ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(h)à0¸ ` x` xàAPPEAL€TO€COURTS.€€Any€decision€of€the€board,€in€theÐ €)Ð$' Ðabsence€of€any€application€by€any€interested€party€forÐ p*À%( Ðrehearing€thereof,€shall€become€final€ten€(10)€calendar€daysÐ `+°&) Ðafter€the€date€of€mailing€of€the€written€notification€of€theÐ ° Ðdecision€to€the€last€known€address€of€each€interested€party€orÐ  ð Ðwithin€ten€(10)€calendar€days€after€the€date€the€writtenÐ à Ðnotification€of€the€decision€is€given€to€each€interested€party,Ð €Ð Ðwhichever€occurs€first.€€ÐpÀ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(i)à0¸ ` x` xàCOURT€REVIEW:€(1)€Within€thirty€(30)€days€after€theÐ P   Ðdecision€of€the€board€has€become€final,€any€party€aggrievedÐ @  Ðthereby€may€secure€judicial€review€thereof€by€filing€a€petitionÐ 0 € Ðfor€judicial€review€in€the€chancery€court€of€the€county€of€suchÐ  p  Ðpartyððs€residence€against€the€commissioner€for€review€of€suchÐ `  Ðdecision.€€ÐP ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà ` àWatauga,€while€conceding€that€its€petition€for€judicial€review€was€not€timely€filed€asÐ à0  Ðprescribed€in€T.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“#š#Ô€50„7„304(h),€(i),€argues€that€its€Petition€should€be€considered€as€timely€filedÐ Ð  Ðunder€Rule€6.02,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€since€neither€Watauga€nor€their€counsel€received€the€decisionsÐ Ð  Ðof€the€Board€of€Review€until€after€the€time€for€filing€a€Petition€for€Review€in€Chancery€Court€hadÐ À Ðpassed.€€Rule€6.02€provides:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òRule€6.02€EnlargementÐà` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àó óWhen€by€statute€or€by€these€rules€or€by€a€notice€givenÐ €Ð Ðthereunder€or€by€order€of€court€an€act€is€required€or€allowed€to€beÐ pÀ Ðdone€at€or€within€a€specified€time,€the€court€for€cause€shown€may,€atÐ `° Ðany€time€in€its€discretion€.€.€.€(2)€upon€motion€made€after€theÐ P  Ðexpiration€of€the€specified€period€permit€the€act€to€be€done,€where€theÐ @ Ðfailure€to€act€was€the€result€of€excusable€neglect€.€.€.€.Provided,€thisÐ 0€ Ðsubsection€shall€not€apply€to€the€time€provided€in€Tennessee€CodeÐ  p ÐAnnotated€Section€27„312€for€praying€an€appeal€and€filing€appealÐ ` Ðbond,€nor€to€the€time€provided€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€SectionÐ P Ð27„111€for€filing€a€bill€of€exceptions.€€Ðð@` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Department€responds€that€ð ðthe€time€requirement€for€filing€a€petition€for€certiorari,Ð Ð!  Ðlike€the€time€requirement€for€filing€a€notice€of€appeal€to€the€Court€pursuant€to€T.R.A.P.€4(a),€isÐ À"  Ðmandatory€and€jurisdictional€.€.€.€.this€rule€is€absolute€and€inflexible.ðð€€We€find€support€for€thisÐ °#! Ðposition€in€a€recent€decision€of€our€Supreme€Court.€€In€òòSchering„Plough€Healthcare€Products,€Inc.Ð  $ð" Ðv.€State€Board€of€Equalization,€óó999€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔS.W.2dÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“ã¡#Ô€773€(Tenn.€1999),€a€property€owner€filed€a€petitionÐ %à # Ðseeking€judicial€review€of€the€Boardððs€decision€upholding€a€county€tax€assessment.€€The€ChanceryÐ &à!$ ÐCourt€of€Shelby€County€dismissed€the€petition,€finding€in€part€that€the€statute€which€establishes€aÐ €'Ð"% Ð60„day€time€limit€for€filing€a€petition€for€judicial€review€of€administrative€actions,€T.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“£#Ô€4„5„Ð p(À#& Ð322(b),€also€requires€the€petitioner€to€serve€that€petition€upon€respondent€within€60€days.€€The€CourtÐ p)À$' Ðof€Appeals€reversed,€holding€that€the€60„day€time€limit€applies€to€the€filing€of€the€petition€but€doesÐ `*°%( Ðnot€require€that€it€be€served€upon€all€parties€within€60€days.€€The€Supreme€Court€affirmed€theÐ P+ &) Ðdecision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€The€Supreme€Courtððs€reasoning€recited€familiar€rules€of€statutoryÐ ° Ðconstruction:Ð  ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€resolving€the€issues€in€this€appeal,€we€are€guided€by€the€followingÐ €Ð Ðgeneral€rules€of€statutory€construction.€€The€role€of€this€Court€inÐ pÀ Ðconstruing€statutes€is€to€ascertain€and€give€effect€to€legislative€intent.€Ð ` ° ÐLegislative€intent€is€to€be€ascertained€whenever€possible€from€theÐ P   Ðnatural€and€ordinary€meaning€of€the€language€used,€without€forced€orÐ @  Ðsubtle€construction€that€would€limit€or€extend€the€meaning€of€theÐ 0 € Ðlanguage.€€If€the€legislative€intent€is€expressed€in€a€manner€devoid€ofÐ  p  Ðcontradiction€and€ambiguity,€there€is€no€room€for€interpretation€orÐ `  Ðconstructions,€and€courts€are€not€at€liberty€to€depart€from€the€wordsÐ P  Ðof€the€statute.€€Where€the€language€contained€within€the€four€cornersÐ ð@  Ðof€a€statute€is€plain,€clear,€and€unambiguous,€the€duty€of€the€courts€isÐ à0  Ðsimple€and€obvious,€ð ðto€say€sic€lex€scripta,€and€obey€it.ðð€[CitationsÐ Ð  Ðomitted.]ÐÀ` x` x ÐÌòòSchering„Plough€v.€State€Bd.€of€Equalization,€óó999€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔS.W.2dÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“éª#Ô€at€775„776.€€In€holding€that€the€PetitionÐ  ð Ðfor€Review€in€that€case€could€be€maintained€because€it€was€filed,€although€not€served,€within€60Ð  ð Ðdays,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€plain€language€of€the€statute€required€only€that€the€petition€forÐ à Ðreview€be€filed€within€sixty€days€after€entry€of€the€final€agency€order,€and€ð ðwhere€the€languageÐ €Ð Ðcontained€within€the€four€corners€of€a€statute€is€plain,€clear€and€unambiguous,€courts€are€not€atÐ pÀ Ðliberty€to€depart€from€the€language€of€the€statute.€€Judicial€construction€simply€is€not€appropriate.ðð€Ð `° ÐòòId.óó€at€777.€€Ð P  ÐÌà  àà ` àSignificantly€for€our€purposes,€the€Supreme€Court€also€stated€in€òòSchering„Ploughóó€thatÐ 0€ Ðð ðwe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Appeals€that€a€petition€for€review€is€comparable€to€a€notice€of€appeal.ðð€Ð  p ÐòòId.óó€at€776.€€€It€is€axiomatic€that€a€notice€of€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court€or€Court€of€Appeals€in€civilÐ ` Ðcases€must€be€filed€within€the€statutory€time€limit.€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€4(a).€€This€rule€is€mandatory€andÐ P Ðjurisdictional.€€òòAmerican€Steinwinter€Investor€Group€v.€American€Steinwinter,€Inc.,€óó964€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔS.W.2dÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“Y°#Ô€569Ð ð@ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€Similarly,€a€deadline€for€filing€a€petition€for€judicial€review€in€a€contestedÐ ð @ Ðadministrative€case€is€mandatory€and€jurisdictional,€and€failure€to€adhere€to€it€is€fatal€for€thoseÐ à!0 Ðseeking€review.€òòTurner€v.€Tennessee€Bd.€of€Paroles,€óó993€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔS.W.3dÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“ê±#Ô€78,€80€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);Ð Ð"   ÐòòUnited€Steelworkers€of€America€v.€Tennessee€Air€Pollution€Control€Bd.,€óó3€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔS.W.3dÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“´²#Ôòòóó€468,€472€(Tenn.Ð Ð# ! ÐCt.€App.€1998);€€òòHRA,€Inc.€v.€Tennessee€Depððt.€of€Commerce€and€Insurance,€óó914€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔS.W.2d€Ô#†X¥ûXX X&“~³#Ô€512,€516Ð Ð$ " Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Since€a€petition€for€review€in€the€Trial€Court€is€comparable€to€a€notice€ofÐ Ð% !# Ðappeal€in€this€Court,€the€mandatory€nature€and€jurisdictional€effect€of€the€statutory€time€limit€setÐ À&"$ Ðforth€in€T.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“æ´#Ô€50„7„304(h),€(i),€which€bears€the€same€plain€meaning€as€the€time€limit€for€a€noticeÐ °'#% Ðof€appeal,€also€carries€the€same€effect.€€This€statute€clearly€says€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ôððs€petition€for€judicialÐ °($& Ðreview€was€required€to€be€filed€within€thirty€days€after€the€decision€of€the€Board€became€final€underÐ  )ð$' ÐÔ_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€50„7„304(h),€ten€calendar€days€after€the€date€of€the€mailing€of€written€notification€of€theÐ *à%( Ðdecision.€€From€the€record€before€us,€there€is€no€dispute€but€that€the€Board€mailed€the€decisions€asÐ €+Ð&) ÐÑOa Ñâ âÑ°°Ñâ âÑ  Ñrequired€by€subsection€(h).€€Accordingly,€since€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€failed€to€file€its€Petition€for€Review€in€aÐ ° Ðtimely€manner,€the€Trial€Court€lacked€jurisdiction€to€hear€the€appeal€of€the€Board€of€ReviewððsÐ  ð Ðdecision€in€Ô_ÔGreenwellÔ_Ô€that€the€employees€were€locked€out€of€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ôððs€premises.€€Therefore,€weÐ à Ðvacate€the€Trial€Courtððs€decision€in€Ô_ÔGreenwellÔ_Ô€and€dismiss€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ôððs€Petition€for€Review€inÐ €Ð ÐÔ_ÔGreenwellÔ_Ô.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ԀРpÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€next€address€Wataugaððs€issue€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€overturning€the€BoardððsÐ P   Ðdecision€disqualifying€the€employees€for€benefits€based€upon€their€refusal€to€accept€offers€of€suitableÐ @  Ðwork.€€The€employees€argue€that€the€Trial€Courtððs€decision€is€correct,€as€they€maintain€the€Board€ofÐ 0 € ÐReviewððs€decision€in€Anderson€was€unsupported€by€the€evidence.€€The€Board€of€Review€found€thatÐ  p  Ðthe€employees€failed€to€accept€a€reasonable€offer€to€return€to€work€and€each€was€precluded€fromÐ `  Ðreceipt€of€continuing€benefits€as€of€his€date€of€refusal€of€such€work.€€We€review€the€decision€of€theÐ P  ÐBoard€for€the€presence€of€substantial€and€material€evidence,€i.e.,€ð ðrelevant€evidence€which€aÐ ð@  Ðreasonable€mind€might€accept€to€support€a€rational€conclusion€and€which€furnishes€a€reasonablyÐ à0  Ðsound€basis€for€the€action€being€reviewed.ðð€€òòFrogge€óóat€922.€€Neither€we€nor€the€Trial€Court€have€theÐ Ð  Ðluxury€of€substituting€our€judgment€regarding€the€weight€of€the€evidence€for€that€of€the€Board,€evenÐ À Ðwhere€the€evidence€could€support€a€different€result.€€òòWillamette€Industries,€Inc.€v.€TennesseeÐ ° ÐAssessment€Appeals€Comððn.,€óó11€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔS.W.3dÔ#†X¥ûXX X&““À#Ô€142,€147€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€In€this€case,€the€Board€ofÐ  ð ÐReview€adopted€the€findings€of€fact€of€the€Appeals€Tribunal,€but€reached€the€opposite€result€fromÐ  ð Ðthose€facts.€€The€relevant€statute,€T.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“ÍÁ#Ô€50„7„303(a)€provides,€as€pertinent:Ð à ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€DISQUALIFYING€EVENTS.€€A€claimant€shall€be€disqualifiedÐ €Ð Ðfor€benefits:ÐpÀ` x` x Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)€If€the€administrator€finds€that€the€claimant€has€failed€without€goodÐ P  Ðcause,€either€to€apply€for€available,€suitable€work,€when€so€directedÐ @ Ðby€the€employment€office,€or€the€administrator,€or€to€accept€suitableÐ 0€ Ðwork€when€offered€(or€to€return€to€such€claimantððs€customary€self„Ð  p Ðemployment,€if€any,€when€so€directed€by€the€administrator).€€Ð`` x` x ÐÌà@uu$ìà*€€€*€€€*€€€ˆÐ ð @ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€determining€whether€or€not€any€work€is€suitable€for€the€claimant,Ð Ð"   Ðthe€administrator€shall€consider€the€degree€of€risk€involved€to€theÐ À#! Ðclaimantððs€health,€safety€and€morals€.€.€.€.€€Notwithstanding€any€otherÐ °$ " Ðprovisions€of€this€chapter,€no€work€shall€be€deemed€suitable€andÐ  %ð # Ðbenefits€shall€not€be€denied€hereunder€to€any€otherwise€eligibleÐ &à!$ Ðclaimant€for€refusing€to€accept€new€work€under€any€of€the€followingÐ €'Ð"% Ðconditions:а` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà(A)€If€the€position€offered€is€vacant€due€directly€to€aÐ à Ðstrike,€lockout€or€other€labor€dispute;Ѐи ¸  ÐÌÌà  àà ` àAs€stated,€the€Appeals€Tribunal,€and€the€Board€of€Review,€found€the€following€factsÐ P   Ðabout€the€employeesðð€refusal€to€accept€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ôððs€offer€of€a€return€to€work:Ð @  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThey€did€not€respond€because€they€understood€no€contract€was€signedÐ  p  Ðbetween€the€employer€and€the€union.€€This€dispute€was€hostile€andÐ `  Ðbitter,€and€there€was€ongoing€litigation€and€involvement€with€theÐ P  ÐNLRB.€€These€specific€letters€offering€a€return€to€former€jobsÐ ð@  Ðfollowed€two€earlier€more€general€offers,€one€January€12,€1994,€andÐ à0  Ðone€February€8,€1994.€€Claimants€understood€from€those€earlierÐ Ð  Ðletters€they€had€been€replaced€by€permanent€replacement€employeesÐ À Ðand€were€no€longer€employed.€€They€also€understood€in€accepting€thisÐ ° Ðoffer,€they€would€have€to€cross€the€picket€line€and€would€be€workingÐ  ð Ðin€an€ordinary€at€will€status€subject€to€discharge€without€cause€orÐ à Ðrecourse.€€They€were€advised€by€union€officials€not€to€accept€theÐ €Ð Ðoffer.€ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌThe€Appeals€Tribunal,€based€upon€its€findings€of€fact,€held€that€the€employeesðð€refusal€to€return€toÐ P  Ðwork€did€not€disqualify€them€from€receiving€benefits.Ð @ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Board€of€Review,€relying€on€those€same€findings€of€fact,€held€that€the€employeesððÐ  p Ðrefusal€was€a€disqualifying€event.€The€Board€of€Review€summarized,€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€evidence€in€the€recordÐ ` Ðdoes€not€support€that€the€circumstances€were€so€bad€that€the€jobs€would€be€unsuitable.ðð€€Ð P ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€reversed€the€decision€of€the€Board€of€Review€and€reinstated€theÐ à0 Ðdecision€of€the€Appeals€Tribunal,€thereby€holding€the€employeesðð€refusal€to€return€to€work€to€beÐ Ð  Ðreasonable€and€not€a€disqualifying€event.€€The€Trial€Court,€after€quoting€testimony€of€the€employees,Ð À! Ðrecited€the€statutory€factors,€i.e.,€€ð ðthe€degree€of€risk€involved€to€the€claimantsðð€health€and€safety,ððÐ °"  ÐT.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“¥Ñ#Ô€50„7„303(a)(4)€and€that€ð ðthe€position€offered€was€vacant€due€directly€to€a€strike,€lockoutÐ  #ð! Ðor€other€labor€dispute,ðð€and€concluded:Ð  $ð" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThere€is€substantial€and€material€evidence€in€the€record€as€a€wholeÐ €&Ð!$ Ðthat€requires€granting€benefits€to€the€petitioners€.€.€.€the€work€was€notÐ p'À"% Ðsuitable€because€the€risk€of€harm€to€the€health€and€safety€of€theÐ `(°#& ÐPetitioners€was€overwhelming,€and€the€jobs€offered€to€the€PetitionersÐ P) $' Ðwere€vacant€due€directly€to€a€lockout.ððÐ@*%(` x` x ÐÐ 0+€&) ЇÓÓà  àà ` àIn€this€appeal,€Watauga€argues:Ð ° ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€Chancellor€substituted€his€judgment€for€that€of€the€Board€ofÐ à ÐReview€as€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence€on€questions€of€fact€.€.€.€theÐ €Ð ÐBoard€of€Reviewððs€determination€that€Claimants€refused€an€offer€ofÐ pÀ Ðsuitable€work€was€based€on€substantial€and€material€evidence€in€theÐ ` ° Ðrecord€.€.€.€the€Chancellor€fundamentally€misconstrued€the€StandardÐ P   Ðof€Review€applicable€to€the€case€on€appeal.Ð@ ` x` x ÐÌWe€agree.€€The€Trial€Courtððs€statement€that€ð ðthere€is€substantial€and€material€evidence€in€the€recordÐ  p  Ðas€a€whole€that€requires€granting€benefits€to€the€petitioners€.€.€.ðð€misconstrues€the€statutoryÐ `  Ðconstraints€upon€judicial€review€of€the€Boardððs€decision.€€The€question€before€the€Trial€Court,€andÐ P  Ðthis€Court,€is€not€whether€there€was€ð ðsubstantial€and€material€evidence€in€the€record€as€a€whole€that€Ð ð@  Ðrequires€granting€benefits€to€the€petitioners,ðð€but€rather€whether€the€Boardððs€findings,€inferences,Ð à0  Ðconclusions,€and€decisions€were€ð ðunsupported€by€evidence€which€is€both€substantial€and€materialÐ Ð  Ðin€the€light€of€the€entire€record.ðð€€The€statutorily€mandated€standard€of€review,€as€set€forth€in€T.C.A.Ð À ÐÔ‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“~Ú#Ô€50„7„304(i)(2)€and€(3),€clearly€requires€the€Trial€Court€and€this€Court€to€affirm€the€decision€of€theÐ ° ÐBoard€of€Review€unless€that€decision€is€ð ðunsupported€by€evidence€which€is€both€substantial€andÐ ° Ðmaterial€in€the€light€of€the€entire€record.ðð€€If€there€is€substantial€and€material€evidence€that€supportsÐ  ð Ðthe€Boardððs€decision,€it€must€be€upheld:Ð à ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€reviewing€an€administrative€decision,€a€court€ð ðshall€not€substituteÐ pÀ Ðits€judgment€for€that€of€the€agency€as€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence€onÐ `° Ðquestions€of€fact.ðð€T.C.A.€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔððÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“oÝ#Ô€4„5„322(h)(5).€€Factual€issues€areÐ P  Ðreviewed€upon€a€standard€of€substantial€and€material€evidence€and€notÐ P  Ðupon€a€broad,€òòde€novoóó€review.€€òòCF€Indus.€v.€Tennessee€Pub.€Serv.Ð @ ÐCommððn.,óó€599€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔS.W.2dÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“¸Þ#Ô€536,€540€(Tenn.€1980).€€Substantial€andÐ 0€ Ðmaterial€evidence€is€ð ðsuch€relevant€evidence€as€a€reasonable€mindÐ 0€ Ðmight€accept€to€support€a€rational€conclusion€and€such€as€to€furnishÐ  p Ða€reasonably€sound€basis€for€the€action€under€consideration.ðð€€òòSweetÐ  ` Ðv.€State€Tech.€Ins.€at€Memphis,€óó617€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔS.W.2dÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“uà#Ô€158,€161€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð !P Ð1989)€[òòquoting€Pace€v.€Garbage€Disposal€District€of€WashingtonÐ "P ÐCounty,€óó54€Tenn.€Ct.€App.€263,€390€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔS.W.2dÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“gá#Ô€461,€463€(1965)].Ðð"@ ` x` x ÐÌòòSouthern€Railway€Co.€v.€State€Bd.€of€Equalization,€óó682€Ô‡ X&“XXX¥ûÔS.W.2dÔ#†X¥ûXX X&“â#Ô€196€(Tenn.€1984).€€€We€hold€theÐ à$0 " Ðrecord€in€this€case,€Anderson,€contains€substantial€and€material€evidence€to€support€the€findings€andÐ à%0!# Ðdecision€of€the€Board.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court€and€reinstate€theÐ Ð& "$ ÐBoardððs€decision€in€Anderson€holding€that€the€employees€in€this€consolidated€case€are€disqualifiedÐ À'#% Ðfrom€receiving€unemployment€benefits€after€the€dates€on€which€each€was€offered€a€return€to€workÐ °($& Ðby€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô.Ð  )ð$' ÐÌÔ‡X&“XXX¥ûÔà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionóóó óˆÐ €+Ð&) Їà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€in€ð ðÔ_ÔGreenwellÔ_Ôðð€is€vacated€and€that€case€is€dismissed.€Ð ° ÐThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€in€ð ðAndersonðð€is€reversed€and€the€Board€of€Reviewððs€decisionÐ œì Ðupheld.€€This€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,Ð ˆØ Ðif€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€and€for€collection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€areÐ tÄ Ðassessed€one„half€against€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€Industries,€Inc.€and€one„half€against€the€employees€inÐ `° Ðð ðAnderson.ððÔ#†X¥ûXXX&“ºä#ÔÐ L œ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð ¨ø  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àD.€MICHAEL€Ô_ÔSWINEYÔ_Ô,€JUDGEÐ ˜è ÐÌÌ