opinion: FOSTER TRANSFORMER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
  No. 73-1853.
  United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
  Argued Feb. 4, 1974.
  Decided Feb. 15, 1974.
  J. Mack Swigert, Thorley C. Mills, Jr., Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief, for petitioner.
  Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Robert Sewell, John Ferguson, Warren Ogden, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., on brief, for respondent.
  Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, McCREE, Circuit Judge, and ROSENSTEIN, Senior Customs Judge.
  Senior Judge Samuel M. Rosenstein, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation.
  ORDER
  This case is before the court on the petition of Foster Transformer Company to review a decision of the National Labor Relations Board, and the cross-application of the Board for enforcement of its order. Reference is made to the decision of the Board, reported at 205 N.L.R.B. 82, for a recitation of pertinent facts.
  The court is of the view that the Board properly concluded that the company violated § 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the certified representative of its employees, and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in overruling the objections of the Company to the election.
  It is ordered that the order of the Board be enforced.
  Entered by order of the court.
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 "unclear". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto industry chemical industry drug industry food industry oil & gas industry clothing & textile industry electronic industry alcohol and tobacco industry other unclear