opinion: SACO-LOWELL SHOPS, a Division of Maremont Corporation, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
  No. 12201.
  United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
  Argued Oct. 28, 1968.
  Decided Nov. 14, 1968.
  J. Frank Ogletree, Jr., Greenville, S. C. (Thompson, Ogletree & Haynsworth, Greenville, S. C., on brief) for petitioner.
  John D. Burgoyne, Atty., N. L. R. B., (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, on brief) for respondent.
  Before BRYAN, WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM:
  The National Labor Relations Board found that Saco-Lowell Shops, a division of Maremont Corporation, had violated § 8(a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), by the distribution of a handbook at its plant in Easley, South Carolina, containing a too rigid restriction upon the solicitation of employees to sign union authorization or membership cards, and had there also violated § 8(a) (3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (3), in discharging an employee because of his activities on behalf of the union. 169 N.L.R.B. No. 151 (February 28, 1968).
  We are asked by the Board to enforce its remedial order; Saco-Lowell requests it be vacated. Our province is limited to the ascertainment of the substantiality of the evidence underlying the Board’s action. Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). As we cannot say that the proof did not meet the requisite standard, we will enforce the decision of the Board.
  Order enforced.
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 business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "manufacturing". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto chemical drug food processing oil refining textile electronic alcohol or tobacco other unclear