opinion: NARRAGANSETT IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOCAL UNION NO. 251, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Defendant-Appellant.
  No. 74-1248.
  United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
  Argued Oct. 9, 1974.
  Decided Nov. 29, 1974.
  Dennis J. Roberts, II, Providence, R. I., with whom Roberts & Wiley Inc., Providence, R.I., was on brief, for appellant.
  Patrick A. Liguori, Providence, R.I., with whom Adler, Pollock & Sheehan Inc., Providence, R.I., was on brief, for appellee.
  Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, Mc-ENTEE and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  We are informed that the parties have reached agreement as to the meaning of the arbitrator’s award and its resubmission to the arbitrator for resolution of ambiguities pursuant to the district court’s order is no longer necessary or contemplated. Thus the arbitral process has apparently run its course. We dissolve the injunction and remand this case to the district court for further consideration in light of this development. See Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood Co., 299 U.S. 259, 267-268, 57 S.Ct. 202, 81 L.Ed. 178 (1936); Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 600, 607, 55 S.Ct. 575, 79 L.Ed. 1082 (1935).
  We intímate no opinion as to the propriety of injunctive relief at a time when it had become clear by virtue of the award’s remand for clarification that the arbitral process had not yet run its course. However, under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement the union’s implicit obligation not to strike was at least suspended by Narragansett’s failure to abide by the arbitrator’s award. It appears to us that in continuing to challenge the award after it had been confirmed by the district court, Narragansett brought into play the contractual language dealing with the situation where one party “fails to abide” by a decision. Hence we have difficulty in seeing how the strike in question could have contravened the union’s no-strike obligation, and we suggest Narragansett address this question before the court on remand.
  Vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
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 organization or association", specifically "business, trade, professional, or union (BTPU)". Your task is to determine what subcategory of private association best describes this litigant.
choices: Business or trade association utilities co-ops Professional association - other than law or medicine Legal professional association Medical professional association AFL-CIO union (private) Other private union Private Union - unable to determine whether in AFL-CIO Public employee union- in AFL-CIO (include groups called professional organizations if their role includes bargaining over wages and work conditions) Public Employee Union - not in AFL-CIO Public Employee Union - unable to determine if in AFL-CIO Union pension fund; other union funds (e.g., vacation funds) Other Unclear