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.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
G. T. SCHJELDAHL CO., PACKAGING MACHINERY DIVISION, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. LOCAL LODGE 1680 OF DISTRICT LODGE NO. 64 OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, Defendant, Appellee.
No. 7032.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
April 12, 1968.
Robert J. Cotton, Boston, Mass., with whom Morris L. Deutsch and Schneider, Bronstein, Wolbarsht & Deutsch, Boston, Mass., were on the brief, for appellant.
Richard A. Skolnik, Providence, R. I., with whom Julius C. Michaelson and Abedon, Michaelson, Stanzler & Biener, Providence, R. I., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, Mc-ENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
ALDRICH, Chief Judge.
This is an action under section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, against a union for damages caused by breach of a no-strike clause in a collective bargaining agreement. The district court stayed the action pending arbitration demanded by the union pursuant to another provision in the agreement and the company appeals. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S. C. § 1292(a). Hilti, Inc. v. Oldach, 1 Cir., 1968, 392 F.2d 368.
The company properly, at least in a case where the union asserts there was no strike, does not contend that by striking over its alleged grievance the union waived whatever right it had to insist on arbitration. Drake Bakeries, Inc. v. Local 50, American Bakery, etc., Workers, 1962, 370 U.S. 254, 82 S.Ct. 1346, 8 L.Ed.2d 474. Rather, it stakes all on a claim that arbitration was not required under the agreement. The pertinent provisions are found in Article 8, the “Grievance Procedure.”
8.1 The term “grievance” means a difference or dispute between the Company and the Union, or between the Company and any employee with respect to the interpretation, meaning, application, claim of breach or violation of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
8.2 All grievances must be taken up within ten (10) working days of their occurrence or they shall not be deemed valid.
8.3 Any grievance as described above shall be settled in accordance with the following procedure:
First: Employees in the first instance may register grievances with the Steward who shall present such grievances to the immediate supervisor. The immediate supervisor’s answer shall be given as soon as possible but not to exceed one working day. Matters unsettled at this point shall be reduced to writing and given to the Manager of Industrial Relations of the Company.
Second: [We omit reproduction of this, and also of step three, both of which provide for continuation of the employee-initiated grievance commenced under step one.]
8.4 Within sixty (60) days of the date of the Company’s answer of the Third Step, the Union will notify the Company in writing of its intention to (a) accept the Company’s answer as final disposition, (b) withdraw the grievance, or (c) submit the grievance or grievances to arbitration.
8.5 Any grievance not settled in the grievance procedure may be submitted to arbitration by either party. * * *
The company properly concedes that, standing alone, Art. 8.1 is broad enough to describe employer grievances as well as employee grievances. However, we point out that this is because of the generality of its language, as distinguished from a specific statement. Arts. 8.3 and 8.4 are very clearly in terms limited to employee grievances. We cannot accept the union’s contention that this is a “strained interpretation.” Rather, if we stop here we must agree with the company that this particularization in Arts. 8.3 and 8.4 calls into effect the principle that a subsequent specification impliedly limits the meaning of a preceding generalization. J. E. Faltin Motor Transp., Inc. v. Eazor Express, Inc., 3 Cir., 1959, 273 F.2d 444; Rice Growers Ass’n of Cal. v. F. Carrera & Hno., Inc., 1 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 843; Antonio Marcaccio, Inc. v. Santurri, 1931, 51 R.I. 440, 155 A. 571; 4 Williston, Contracts § 619 (3d ed. 1961). When Art. 8.3, which speaks only in terms of employee-initiated grievances, incorporates “Any grievance as described above,” that is, all grievances described above, the indication is that the limitation apparent on the face of this article was equally intended for the former.
The union’s response is that this indication is contradicted by Art. 8.5, which permits “Any grievance not settled in the grievance procedure” to be submitted to arbitration by “either party.” If there were a necessary inconsistency between Art. 8.5 and the clear language of Arts. 8.3 and 8.4 we would have a serious ambiguity in the agreement. However, we do not so read it. The phrase “Any grievance not settled in the grievance procedure,” as we have said, refers to and relates back to the grievances to which the grievance procedure was applicable. This in no way advances the union’s position. Nor, in our opinion, does the fact that Art. 8.5 permits “either” party to call for arbitration. While at first blush it might be wondered why the company would want to arbitrate an unsettled employee grievance, we find it significant that this agreement is drafted with the intent of handling disagreements in the format of employee-initiated grievances. See, for example, Arts. 14.3(b) and (d). Yet Art. 8.4(b) expressly provides that the union may withdraw a particular grievance without accepting the adverse outcome. The company, however, might wish the matter settled. It could, in such instances, utilize Art. 8.5 to seek arbitration. We lack expertise to know whether, alternatively, the company, in the interest of good relations, might wish to yield to a particular grievance temporarily, but not to do so permanently, and hence not treat the grievance as “settled.” If so, again it could turn to Art. 8.5.
We recognize that the strong policy favoring labor arbitration requires doubts to be resolved in favor of arbitration. United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 1960, 363 U.S. 574, 582-583, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409. However, where the undertaking in question was in all other respects oriented towards employee grievances only, the mere fact that the agreement contains a clause which might be more broadly construed if it were not limited by specific provisions is not a sufficient ambiguity. Nor is the belief that it would be preferable had the agreement been broader sufficient reason to make it so. That only employee grievances should be arbitrated is not a result absurd on its face. Cf. Boeing Co. v. International Union, 3 Cir., 1967, 370 F.2d 969. Our duty to determine whether under a proper construction of the agreement the parties agreed to arbitrate, Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 1962, 370 U.S. 238, 82 S.Ct. 1318, 8 L.Ed.2d 462; Drake Bakeries, Inc. v. Local 50, American Bakery, etc., Workers, supra, does not require us to do violence to principles of contract interpretation.
The stay order is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1