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.

Opinion:
MISCELLANEOUS DRIVERS, HELPERS, HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 610, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Appellant, v. The KROGER CO., a corporation, Appellee.
No. 87-2430.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 1988.
Decided Oct. 3, 1988.
Brian E. McGovern, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Thomas B. Weaver, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before FAGG, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and NICHOL, Senior District Judge.
The HONORABLE FRED J. NICHOL, Senior United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
FAGG, Circuit Judge.
Miscellaneous Drivers, Helpers, Health Care and Public Employees Union Local 610 (the Union) appeals from the denial of its motion to recover a bond filed in support of an order restraining The Kroger Co. (Kroger). After dissolving the temporary restraining order (TRO), the district court denied the Union’s motion and awarded damages to Kroger. We reverse and remand with instructions to return the bond to the Union.
Kroger operated a warehouse and a number of stores in metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri. The Union represented the truck drivers employed by Kroger. When Kroger informed the Union that it planned to close the St. Louis warehouse and stores, the Union sought to grieve the closings under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. In addition, the Union obtained a TRO restraining Kroger from closing the operations pending the outcome of the grievance proceedings.
After a grievance committee resolved the dispute in favor of Kroger, the district court dissolved the TRO. The Union then moved to recover the bond. Kroger resisted the Union’s motion and requested damages for the costs of continuing the St. Louis operations during the TRO. The district court denied the Union’s motion for recovery of the bond and awarded damages to Kroger in the amount of the bond.
Based on a careful review of the record, we conclude the parties’ collective bargaining agreement covered the labor dispute over the St. Louis closing. We believe the Union’s position was “sufficiently sound to prevent the [grievance proceedings] from being a futile endeavor.” Amalgamated Transit Union, Div. 1384 v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 529 F.2d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir.), vacated and remanded, 429 U.S. 807, 97 S.Ct. 43, 50 L.Ed.2d 68 (1976), rev’d on other grounds, 550 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 837, 98 S.Ct. 127, 54 L.Ed.2d 99 (1977) (Greyhound Lines, Inc.)) see also, e.g., Nursing Home & Hosp. Union No. 434 v. Sky Vue Terrace, Inc., 759 F.2d 1094, 1098 n. 3 (3d Cir.1985). We also believe the district court correctly determined the closings would undermine the grievance proceedings. Thus, we are convinced the district court properly issued the TRO.
Turning to the Union’s claim it was entitled to recover the bond, we find no basis for the district court’s award of damages to Kroger. The district court was justified in issuing the TRO, and the Union’s loss on the merits of the grieved dispute is irrelevant to the correctness of the initial TRO decision. See Lever Bros. Co. v. International Chem. Workers Union, Local 217, 554 F.2d 115, 120 (4th Cir.1976); Greyhound Lines, Inc., 529 F.2d at 1079.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Question: This question 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)". 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

Answer: 6