Task: songer_appnatpr

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.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

EDWARDS, Chief Judge.
The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order entered April 13, 1979, reported at 241 NLRB No. 136.
Pepsi-Cola Distributing Company of Knoxville, Tennessee, Inc. purchased a distributorship previously owned and operated by Hartman Beverage Company. For a considerable number of years, Hartman had paid its route salesmen a year-end bonus calculated at one cent per case sold by individual route salesmen during the previous year. The bonus was paid annually approaching the Christmas season and had been so paid before the union, Teamsters Local Union No. 519, negotiated a one year contract, effective November 27, 1975. At the time of these negotiations, no mention was made of the year-end bonus for route salesmen but Hartman paid the bonus in late 1975. The following year, Hartman and the union executed another contract and the bonus was discussed but no reference to it was put in the labor management contract.
During the year 1976, respondent Pepsi-Cola Distributing Company purchased Hartman’s business without actual knowledge of the Hartman practice of paying a one cent a case bonus to its salesmen. While the new ownership became effective February 1,1977, and the management told the route salesmen that there would be no change in pay structure, the record indicates that the new management did not become aware of the bonus until some time in May. Respondent did not discuss the matter with the union or with its route salesmen until some of them began asking about the bonus, at which time General Manager Moore reviewed Hartman’s payroll records and found that Hartman had paid its route salesmen the full rate due under the contract and that the one cent per case bonus was paid in addition to wages under the contract. At that point, Moore informed the route salesmen that he would not pay the year-end bonus.
On complaint filed by the General Counsel alleging that the company had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally withholding the 1977 bonus, the Administrative Law Judge who heard this case initially found that the Christmas bonus “was essentially part of [the route salesmen’s] employment as distinguished from being in nature a gift or gratuity” and that the employer was under a duty to negotiate with the union prior to effecting any change therewith, citing NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 82 S.Ct. 1107, 8 L.Ed.2d 230 (1962); Leeds & Northrup Co. v. NLRB, 391 F.2d 874 (3rd Cir. 1968), unless the union had previously waived its bargaining rights. On his analysis, the ALJ concluded that the waiver clause in the contract previously signed by Hartman with the union served to relieve the successor Pepsi-Cola Distributing Company of any obligation to continue the bonus or to negotiate with the union in relation to discontinuing it in advance of doing so even though the ALJ acknowledged “that employees hired after respondent’s takeover were told that their pay and conditions would remain the same.” In this respect, the ALJ relied upon Bancroft-Whitney Co., Inc., 214 NLRB 57 (1974).
On review by the NLRB, a three-member panel thereof held that the Bancroft-Whitney decision was not determinative in relation to this case. Its reasoning concerning Bancroft-Whitney bears quotation here:
... the Board found that the union had clearly waived any right to bargain about the payment of an annual wage dividend during the contract’s duration. In that case, bargaining was extensive and the contract contained a clear and specific provision that “all wages and other benefits to be received are contained in this agreement.”
The law is settled that the right to be consulted concerning unilateral changes in terms of employment is a right given by statute and not one obtained by contract and that, in order to establish a waiver of a statutory right, there must be a showing of a clear relinquishment of the right. Whether there has been a clear relinquishment of the right is to be decided on the facts and circumstances surrounding the making of the contract. Having considered all the circumstances herein, we conclude that there has been no showing that the Union relinquished its statutory right to bargain over the year-end bonus.
The Board thereupon ordered respondent to cease and desist from “unilaterally without notification of or consultation with the union discontinuing its past practice of conferring upon its route salesmen a year-end bonus” and required the respondent to pay the 1977 year-end bonus and to bargain collectively in relation to any change of practice concerning it.
While this case is not beyond dispute, we conclude that the union had a statutory right to be consulted about changes in relation to the bonus paying practices before it was discontinued and that the Board’s order is consistent with Section 8(d) of the Act which requires the parties to “confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment.” In the unanimous decision in NLRB v. Katz, supra, the opinion for the court said as follows:
The duty “to bargain collectively” enjoined by § 8(a)(5) is defined by § 8(d) as the duty to “meet ... and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.” Clearly, the duty thus defined may be violated without a general failure of subjective good faith; for there is no occasion to consider the issue of good faith if a party has refused even to negotiate in fact—“to meet . .. and confer”— about any of the mandatory subjects.10 A refusal to negotiate in fact as to any subject which is within § 8(d), and about which the union seeks to negotiate, violates § 8(a)(5) though the employer has every desire to reach agreement with the union upon an over-all collective agreement and earnestly and in all good faith bargains to that end. We hold that an employer’s unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation is similarly a violation of § 8(a)(5), for it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate which frustrates the objectives of § 8(a)(5) much as does a flat refusal.11
10 See, e. g., Labor Board v. Allison & Co., 165 F.2d 766 (6 Cir. 1948).
11 Compare Medo Corp. v. Labor Board, 321 U.S. 678, 64 S.Ct. 830, 88 L.Ed. 1007; May Department Stores v. Labor Board, 326 U.S. 376, 66 S.Ct. 203, 90 L.Ed. 145; Labor Board v. Crompton-Highland Mills, 337 U.S. 217, 69 S.Ct. 960, 93 L.Ed. 1320.
In Medo, the Court held that the employer interfered with his employees’ right to bargain collectively through a chosen representative, in violation of § 8(1), 49 Stat. 452 (now § 8(a)(1)), when it treated directly with employees and granted them a wage increase in return for their promise to repudiate the union they had designated as their representative. It further held that the employer violated the statutory duty to bargain when he refused to negotiate with the union after the employees had carried out their promise.
May held that the employer violated § 8(1) when, after having unequivocally refused to bargain with a certified union on the ground that the unit was inappropriate, it announced that it had applied to the War Labor Board for permission to grant a wage increase to all its employees except those whose wages had been fixed by “closed shop agreements.”
Crompton-Highland Mills sustained the Board’s conclusion that the employer’s unilateral grant of a wage increase substantially greater than any it had offered to the union during negotiations which had ended in impasse clearly manifested bad faith and violated the employer’s duty to bargain.
369 U.S. at 742-743, 82 S.Ct. at 1111-1112.
The dissent in this case relies upon NLRB v. Southern Materials Co., 447 F.2d 15 (4th Cir. 1971). There on somewhat similar facts, enforcement of a Board order to pay Christmas bonuses was denied. In that case, however, the bonuses were small and consistent with being Christmas gifts, as opposed to part of regular compensation.
In our instant case, Pepsi-Cola had assured employees that their compensation would be the same as it had been under the Hartman administration. Additionally, it appears clear to us that the year-end payments were not mere bonuses, but were a regularly calculated part of the route salesmen’s compensation, based upon a formula of one cent per case. Thus, what we deal with here, as opposed to Southern Materials, is a unilateral management change of one of the fundamental issues of collective bargaining; namely, wages.
On this record, where a successor employer has promised to continue previously established compensation, a general waiver clause, which does not refer specifically to waiver of a portion of the promised compensation, should not be regarded as a clear and unmistakable waiver of the union’s right to collective bargaining.
The petition of the Board to enforce its order is hereby granted.
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 224 NLRB 881, 887 (1976).

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 0