Task: songer_genresp1

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.
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 is to determine the nature of the first listed respondent.

ALDRICH, Chief Judge.
A union representing the employees of respondent Package Machinery Company sought to bargain with the company over the prices to be charged in the cafeteria and food vending machines. This demand was made when the company notified the union that prices were to be advanced; e.g., coffee and soda from 10^ to 15^; milk to be in smaller containers. The restaurant and vending machines are, so to speak, a concession in reverse; the company pays a national vending concern a subsidy in order to persuade it to conduct the operation. The company refused to bargain over the price rises and eventually an order was entered by the Board.
Basically, indeed, very broadly, the Board wishes us to adopt its Westinghouse Corporation decision, 156 N.L.R. B. 1080, reversed en banc, Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. NLRB, 4 Cir., 1967, 387 F.2d 542. The principle presently advanced by the Board is potentially a far-reaching one, for notwithstanding its attempted reliance on prior cases for support the Board in fact seeks a newly-expanded definition of “conditions of employment,” 29 U.S.C. § 158(d), as it relates to company-supplied food services. At the outset we note that this is obviously not the case of hardship present in Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., 1949, 87 N.L.R.B. 672, involving food services at a remote logging camp. Here over 90% of the employees come to work by automobile; there are several restaurants or cafeterias within a five-minute drive, and although virtually all employees use the vending machines at one time or another, only 50% patronize the company cafeteria. On this record the case is weaker than Westinghouse Electric, ante, where the Board found that there were “inadequate dining facilities within a reasonable distance of the plants” and that Westinghouse employees were “compelled” to eat on the premises. No such finding was made here. Nor does the company propose to discontinue the services. The union seeks to debate simply the extent to which the company must subsidize the cost.
Were we to decide in favor of the Board in this case it could not help but be a precedent, to the extent that it is recognized elsewhere, of nation-wide importance. The Board presents no record as to various company practices in this regard. All it has is a demand from a union that the company should contribute to the expenses of lunch or snacks for those who do not wish to bring their lunch from home, or to take the trouble to drive to a nearby restaurant. If food costs go up from time to time, as inevitably they seem to, it would appear more appropriate to bargain over wages, particularly when half of the employees do not use the company restaurant. In any event, on so thin a record we do not believe we should endorse so broad a principle. The order of the Board will not be enforced.
. Local #220 International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO.
. Tlie Board, quite correctly, did not recognize the union’s charge that the company must bargain over its “profits.”
. The Board took the procedural course of charging a section 8(a) (5) (1) violation for failure to supply information.
. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. NLRB, 4 Cir., 1966, 369 F.2d 891, 894 n. 6.
. To this extent a substantial red herring is sought to be introduced into the ease by National Automatic Machines Assoc., which has submitted an amicus brief. Tlie question is not whether the union is to sit down with the concessionaire in its day by day pricing, but is whether the union lias a right to bargain over the bill which the company must pick up as a result of charging tlie emjiloyees below cost.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed respondent?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A