opinion: WILLIAM B. TANNER COMPANY (formerly Pepper & Tanner, Inc.), Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Local Union No. 474, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (AFL-CIO), Intervenor.
  No. 74-2023.
  United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
  June 12, 1975.
  James E. Irwin, Irwin & Owens, Louis R. Lucas, Ratner, Sugarmon, Lucas & Salky, Memphis, Tenn., for petitioner.
  Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Robert A. Giannasi, Madge F. Jefferson, Washington, D. C:, for respondent.
  Laurence J. Cohen, Sherman, Dunn, Cohen & Leifer, Washington, D. C., for intervenor.
  Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and PECK and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  In an earlier decision in this proceeding, this court denied enforcement of the bargaining order of the Board. Pepper & Tanner, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 474 F.2d 1256 (6th Cir. 1973). In that case, the Board had ordered the company to bargain collectively with Local Union 1275, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL — CIO. It appeared that Local Union 1275 was no longer in existence, having merged into Local 474.
  We said:
  This court is unwilling to enforce a bargaining order requiring the Company to bargain with a union which the record indicates is no longer in existence. Neither are we willing to require the Company to bargain with a successor or merged Union when there has been no adjudication by the Board, supported by substantial evidence, that the successor or merged union is the authorized bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. 474 F.2d at 1257.
  The case was remanded to the Board with directions to hear evidence and make a determination as to whether Local 1275 is still in existence and, if not, whether there is a successor or merged Union which is the duly certified and authorized collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. If necessary, the Board was directed to conduct a Board-supervised election to determine the latter issue.
  In a supplemental decision and order, reported at 212 N.L.R.B. No. 72, the Board concluded that Local 474 is the legal successor to Local 1275 and, as such, is the authorized bargaining representative of the company’s employees.
  Member Kennedy strongly dissented, asserting that the decision of the majority “violates the most elementary principle that the purpose of the Act is the protection of the rights of employees to organize and select their own bargaining representatives.”
  We conclude that substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole does not support the finding that the successor or merged union is the authorized representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
  Enforcement of the order of the Board is denied. The costs of this review are taxed against the National Labor Relations Board.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama