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.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "unclear". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto industry chemical industry drug industry food industry oil & gas industry clothing & textile industry electronic industry alcohol and tobacco industry other unclear