The factors identified and relied on by the Board do not amount to the "substantial justification" required to "fractionate a multi-unit operation whose labor policy is centrally directed and administered." Continental Insurance Co. v. NLRB, 409 F.2d 727, 729 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 902 (1969); see NLRB v. Solis Theatre Corp., 403 F.2d 381 (2 Cir. 1968). In Solis we noted that "[t]he Courts of Appeals have been reluctant to sanction bargaining units whose managers lack the authority to resolve issues which would be the subject of collective bargaining."

We recognize that Section 9(b) vests wide discretion in the Board and that a finding of an appropriate bargaining unit will not be disturbed unless it is arbitrary and amounts to an abuse of discretion. N.L.R.B. v. Lou De Young's Market Basket, Inc., 406 F.2d 17 (6th Cir. 1969). Accord: N.L.R.B. v. Pinkerton's, Inc., 428 F.2d 479 (6th Cir. 1970); N.L.R.B. v. Solis Theatre Corp., 403 F.2d 381 (2nd Cir. 1968); N.L.R.B. v. Davis Cafeteria, Inc., 396 F.2d 18 (5th Cir. 1968); N.L.R.B. v. Purity Food Stores, Inc., 376 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 959, 88 S.Ct. 337, 19 L.Ed.2d 368 (1967). Each of the cases which has considered the issue of the appropriateness of a bargaining unit has focused on the nature and extent of centralization of operations.

In making unit determinations, the Board must effect the policy of the Act to assure employees the fullest freedom in exercising their rights, yet at the same time "respect the interest of an integrated multi unit employer in maintaining enterprise-wide labor relations." NLRB v. Solis Theatre Corp., 403 F.2d 381, 382 (2d Cir. 1968). See Szabo Food Services, Inc. v. NLRB, 550 F.2d 705, 709 (2d Cir. 1976); NLRB v. Pinkerton's Inc., 428 F.2d 479, 485 (6th Cir. 1970).

Such control by Tonawanda over Orchard Park's daily operations and labor conditions amply supports the Board's finding that Orchard Park is not a separate unit. See NLRB v. Solis Theatre Corp., 403 F.2d 381, 383 (2d Cir. 1968) (centralized control of labor conditions such as hiring, wages, and vacation scheduling supports finding of multi-site unit); Neodata Prod./Distribution, Inc., 312 N.L.R.B. 987, 988-89 (1993) (finding multi-site unit where original headquarters controlled daily operations and labor conditions of new facility). The Board additionally found that the functional integration between the two facilities was "almost total."

At the same time, the Board must "respect the interest of an integrated multi-unit employer in maintaining enterprise-wide labor relations." NLRB v. Solis Theatre Corp., 403 F.2d 381, 382 (2d Cir. 1968). Accordingly, the Board must grant some minimum consideration to the employer's interest in avoiding the disruptive effects of piecemeal unionization.

Despite the centrality of the company's management and labor relations, the record contains ample evidence supporting the Board's choice of single-store units. The company's reliance on NLRB v. Solis Theatre Corp., 403 F.2d 381 (2d Cir. 1968), is misplaced; as this court noted in Continental Insurance Co. v. NLRB, 409 F.2d 727, 729 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 902, 90 S.Ct. 215, 24 L.Ed.2d 178 (1969), in Solis Theatre the Board's choice of single-theatre units ignored the geographic proximity of other theatres and the circuit-wide pattern of unionization of other employees. Here, in contrast, the company presented no evidence of company-wide unionization, and the geographic factor militates against a company-wide unit.

We are not unmindful that there are cases in which courts have set aside NLRB determinations that single units in a large chain were not appropriate units on the ground that in those cases the local managers lacked authority to decide the kind of issues which are the usual subject of collective bargains. E.g. NLRB v. Solis Theatre Corp., 403 F.2d 381, 383 (2d Cir. 1968); NLRB v. Davis Cafeteria, Inc., 396 F.2d 18, 21 (5th Cir. 1968); NLRB v. Frisch's Big Boy Ill-Mar, Inc., 356 F.2d 895, 897 (7th Cir. 1966). Those decisions do not apply to this case because here the local managers did have authority to resolve some collective bargaining issues — for example, discharges, disputes, hiring of new employees, and assignments of working hours.

Spring City cites decisions in which insufficient local autonomy has been held to overcome the presumption that a single-plant unit is appropriate. See N.L.R.B. v. Solis Theatre Corp., 403 F.2d 381 (2d Cir. 1968); N.L.R.B. v. Davis Cafeteria, Inc., 396 F.2d 18 (5th Cir. 1968); N.L.R.B. v. Purity Food Stores, Inc. 376 F.2d 497 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 959, 88 S.Ct. 337, 19 L.Ed.2d 368 (1967); N.L.R.B. v. Frisch's Big Boy Ill-Mar, Inc., 356 F.2d 895 (7th Cir. 1966). In only one of these cases, however, N.L.R.B. v. Frisch's Big Boy Ill-Mar, Inc., did the authority of the local manager extend to hiring and discharge decisions.

Where labor policy is centrally determined, and where a manager of a local unit does not have authority to decide questions of collective bargaining, such a local unit does not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.See also NLRB v. Solis Theatre Corp., 403 F.2d 381, 383 (2d Cir. 1968). In Pinkerton's, Inc. we followed the decision of the First Circuit in NLRB v. Purity Food Stores, Inc., 376 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1967).

However, as we have consistently held, where the Board's order is not supported by substantial evidence or is either arbitrary or unreasonable, this court will deny enforcement. E. g., Szabo Food Services, Inc. v. NLRB, 550 F.2d 705, 707 (2d Cir. 1976); NLRB v. Solis Theatre Corp., 403 F.2d 381, 383 (2nd Cir. 1968); Empire State Sugar Co. v. NLRB, 401 F.2d 559, 562 (2d Cir. 1968). We hold that here the Board's order was arbitrary and inconsistent with its clarification order as well as its prior decisions and that its conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence in the record.