opinion: 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. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) favor the appellant?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".