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 "private business and its executives". 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.

Opinion:
YELLOW CAB COMPANY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEMOCRATIC UNION ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, LOCAL 777, S. I. U. N. A., AFL-CIO, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16688.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
July 15, 1968.
Robert E. Haythorne, of Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner-appellant.
Irving M. Friedman, Harold A. Katz, of Katz & Friedman, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.
Before HASTINGS, FAIRCHILD and CUMMINGS, Circuit Judges.
HASTINGS, Circuit Judge.
Yellow Cab Company appeals from a judgment order of the district court entered January 12, 1968 enforcing an arbitration award and denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment vacating the award. Appellant, a Maine corporation, operates a fleet of taxicabs in Chicago, Illinois. Appellee union (the union) is the certified collective bargaining agent of appellant’s drivers.
On May 10, 1966, appellant discharged Harold Ray, one of its cab drivers, on the ground that he was unsuitable for employment as a driver. The union intervened on Ray’s behalf at a grievance meeting on May 13. At that .meeting appellant refused to reconsider its discharge of Ray. There was no further communication on the matter between appellant and the union until ten weeks later when the union, at a regular grievance meeting, attempted to discuss the reinstatement of Ray. Appellant refused to discuss the matter. Two weeks later, on August 5, 1966, the union requested arbitration.
At the outset of arbitration proceedings appellant challenged the arbitrability of the dispute, contending the union had not complied with contractual requirements that grievances be submitted in writing and that requests for arbitration be submitted within twenty days after the Company’s adverse decision on a grievance.
The arbitrator rejected the first of these contentions on the ground that appellant had not previously enforced the writing requirement, although numerous grievances had been processed. He rejected the second contention on the ground that the twenty-day limitation on requests for arbitration should be measured from the date of the last discussion of Ray’s discharge between appellant and the union. The arbitrator construed the arbitration provision of the contract as having the purpose of encouraging voluntary settlement of grievances prior to arbitration. He found that many discharge grievances concerning appellant’s drivers had been settled in the course of time by reinstatement and concluded that the purpose of the grievance procedure would be frustrated if the contract were narrowly construed to require resort to arbitration within twenty days of the Company’s first denial of a grievance. As he saw it “the issue * * * is whether or not there was a reasonable basis for the union’s belief, that the grievance was still open for discussion and possible settlement.” He found that there was.
On the merits the arbitrator concluded that Ray’s discharge was unjust. He awarded Ray back pay in the amount of $3,033.66. However, he denied reinstatement, finding that a letter which Ray wrote to appellant’s insurance carrier following his discharge revealed a motivation that disqualified him as an employee.
Appellant petitioned the district court on May 26,1967 to vacate the arbitrator’s award on grounds that he exceeded his power and displayed evident bias and partiality. The union cross-petitioned for enforcement of the award, and both parties moved for summary judgment. The court, in its memorandum order granting summary judgment for the union, refused to review the arbitrator’s determination of the procedural questions and found that the arbitrator neither exceeded his authority nor displayed bias or partiality.
The first question presented by this appeal is whether the arbitrator’s decision on questions of procedural arbitrability are subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court has held that disagreements concerning procedural arbitrability should not be considered as separate disputes, but as aspects of the dispute which called the grievance procedure into play and should therefore be left to the arbitrator. John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 84 S.Ct. 909, 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964). It cannot be supposed that the courts, recognizing the arbitrator’s exclusive authority to determine procedural questions, may upset the arbitrator’s determination in a review proceeding, unless it is arbitrary, capricious or not adequately grounded on the applicable collective bargaining agreement. See Dallas Typographical Union No. 173 v. A. H. Belo Corp., 5 Cir., 372 F.2d 577 (1967).
The arbitrator’s resolution of procedural questions is a part of his decision on the merits of the dispute, as the Supreme Court suggested in Wiley. As such, it is subject to the limited standard of review annunciated in United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960):
“[A]n arbitrator is confined to interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement; he does not sit to dispense his own brand of industrial justice. He may of .course look for guidance from many sources, yet his award is legitimate only so long as it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. When the arbitrator’s words manifest an infidelity to this obligation, courts have no choice but to refuse enforcement of the award.” 363 U.S. at 597, 80 S.Ct. at 1361. Torrington Co. v. Metal Products Workers Union Local 1645, 2 Cir., 362 F.2d 677 (1966).
The arbitrator’s decision, including his resolution of the procedural questions, clearly draws its essence from the contract. Appellant does not suggest that his decision on the merits is not based on the contract. His decision that compliance with the requirement of written grievances had been excused was based on the parties’ practical construction of the contract. “The labor arbitrator’s source of law is not confined to the express provisions of the contract, as the industrial common law — the practices of the industry and the shop — is equally a part of the collective bargaining agreement although not expressed in it.” United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 581-582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1352, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960). The arbitrator’s decision that the period of limitation for filing arbitration requests runs from the .parties’ last discussion of the grievance was based on his interpretation of the contract in light of the practice of the shop.
We do not sit to pass upon the arbitrator’s construction of contractual provisions. “[T]he question of interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is a question for the arbitrator. It is the arbitrator’s construction which was bargained for; and so far as the arbitrator’s decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts have no business overruling him because their interpretation of the contract is different from his.” United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., supra, 363 U.S. at 599, 80 S.Ct. at 1362. Avco Corp., etc. v. Mitchell, 6 Cir., 336 F.2d 289 (1964).
We find nothing in Torrington Co. v. Metal Products Workers Union Local 1645, supra, that compels us to an opposite conclusion. The court there applied the same standard of review that we apply here, but concluded that the arbitrator’s award did not draw its essence from the contract. That award was based on a company policy that had no foundation in the contract. The arbitrator there concluded that the policy was “carried over” when an existing contract was continued with modifications.
Appellant’s contention that the arbitrator was biased rests solely on the alleged “outrageous” inconsistency between his award of back pay to Ray and his denial of reinstatement. The Supreme Court has recognized the need for flexibility in arbitration remedies. See United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., supra. The contract contains no provision on remedies, leaving the arbitrator free to exercise his discretion. The award of back pay to a wrongfully discharged employee is obviously within the authority of an arbitrator. Arbitration would be meaningless if the arbitrator lacked the authority to redress the economic wrong inflicted on such an employee.
We do not find an inconsistency so glaring as to require us to vacate the arbitrator’s award. The letter found to disqualify Ray for employment was written after his wrongful discharge.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Democratic Union Organizing Committee, Local 777, S.I.U.N.A., AFL-CIO.
. ARTICLE IV — SUSPENSION, DISCHARGE AND LAYOFFS — GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Section 5 * * * (a) A statement in writing signed by the aggrieved employee of his version of the controversy which led to his suspension or discharge shall be submitted to the representative of the Company, together with the written statement of the grievance.
ARTICLE V — ARBITRATION Section 1 — If the parties herein shall be unable to reach a settlement of a grievance, either party may submit the grievance to arbitration by sending to the other party by registered or certified mail within twenty (20) days * * * a notice in writing in which the matter to be arbitrated is clearly set forth.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1