opinion: The BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW, AFL-CIO), Local 1069, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW, AFL-CIO), Appellants, and American Arbitration Association, a New York Corporation.
  No. 15056.
  United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
  Argued April 6, 1965.
  Decided Aug. 10, 1965.
  Alan R. Howe, Philadelphia, Pa. (Edward Davis, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.
  Robert M. Landis, Philadelphia, Pa., Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
  Before GANEY and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges, and KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.
  PER CURIAM.
  This matter concerns itself with an action by an employer under Section 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, for a declaratory judgment seeking the court to determine whether or not the employer was obligated to arbitrate a dispute arising out of the employer’s decision to terminate the distribution of Christmas turkeys to its employees. The defendant-union filed a counterclaim seeking to compel the employer to arbitrate the turkey matter and the case came before the court below on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
  Judge Grim, in the court below, after examining the arbitration clause and, in a clear and lucid opinion, held that the company was bound only to arbitrate grievances which involved “the interpretation or application of provisions of this agreement * * * ” and that “Arbitration was limited to grievances involving a ‘specific provision of this agreement * * *.’ ” Further, the court pointed out that the exclusionary clause in the arbitration article stated that the “jurisdiction of the arbitrator shall be limited to * * * the interpretation and application of the specific provisions of this agreement at issue” and could only mean that it was intended to limit the scope of the arbitrable matter.
  We are in agreement thereof and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court below.
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