NLRB Stats Archive › Annual Reports › FY1940 › Disposition of representation cases on docket during fiscal year: by regions
Disposition of representation cases on docket during fiscal year: by regions
| Region | Total number of cases on docket during fiscal year | Total number of cases closed during fiscal year | Cases closed before formal action | Cases closed after formal action | Total cases pending June 30, 1940 | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | Total number of cases on docket during fiscal year | Total number of cases closed during fiscal year | Total | Settled | Dismissed | Withdrawn | Otherwise closed before formal action | Total | Before Board decision | After Board decision | Otherwise closed after formal action | Total cases pending June 30, 1940 | ||||||||||
| Region | Total number of cases on docket during fiscal year | Total number of cases closed during fiscal year | Total | Consent election | Recognition | Pay-roll check | Dismissed | Withdrawn | Otherwise closed before formal action | Total | Settled | Dismissed | Withdrawn | Withdrawn | Certification | Dismissed | Otherwise closed after formal action | Total cases pending June 30, 1940 | ||||
| Region | Total number of cases on docket during fiscal year | Total number of cases closed during fiscal year | Total | Consent election | Recognition | Pay-roll check | Dismissed | Withdrawn | Otherwise closed before formal action | Total | Consent election | Recognition | Pay-roll check | Dismissed | Withdrawn | No election | Election | No election | Election | Otherwise closed after formal action | Total cases pending June 30, 1940 | |
| 1. Boston | 167 | 137 | 107 | 48 | 18 | 4 | 14 | 23 | 30 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 10 | 9 | 2 | 30 | ||||
| 2. New York | 552 | 428 | 328 | 111 | 34 | 28 | 53 | 99 | 3 | 100 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 3 | 9 | 34 | 22 | 9 | 2 | 124 | |
| 3. Buffalo | 63 | 52 | 36 | 11 | 2 | 4 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 16 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 11 | |||||
| 4. Philadelphia | 193 | 160 | 122 | 37 | 23 | 10 | 19 | 33 | 38 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 13 | 10 | 7 | 33 | ||||||
| 5. Baltimore | 183 | 154 | 126 | 61 | 11 | 15 | 10 | 29 | 28 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 29 | |||||
| 6. Pittsburgh | 61 | 52 | 37 | 13 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 12 | 15 | 2 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 9 | ||||||||
| 7. Detroit | 171 | 120 | 96 | 33 | 11 | 10 | 19 | 23 | 24 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 51 | ||||||
| 8. Cleveland | 142 | 114 | 81 | 31 | 9 | 7 | 10 | 24 | 33 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 21 | 3 | 5 | 28 | ||||||
| 9. Cincinnati | 99 | 79 | 61 | 22 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 19 | 18 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 20 | ||||||
| 10. Atlanta | 102 | 78 | 42 | 12 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 36 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 18 | 4 | 2 | 24 | |||||
| 11. Indianapolis | 113 | 72 | 38 | 15 | 4 | 5 | 14 | 34 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 22 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 41 | ||||
| 12. Milwaukee | 76 | 57 | 53 | 25 | 3 | 4 | 10 | 11 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 19 | ||||||||||
| 13. Chicago | 231 | 165 | 123 | 54 | 18 | 7 | 11 | 33 | 42 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 20 | 4 | 6 | 66 | ||||
| 14. St. Louis | 61 | 45 | 37 | 15 | 9 | 2 | 11 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 16 | ||||||||
| 15. New Orleans | 131 | 109 | 96 | 41 | 3 | 13 | 14 | 24 | 1 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 22 | ||||||
| 16. Fort Worth | 47 | 29 | 17 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 18 | ||||
| 17. Kansas City | 64 | 49 | 42 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 15 | |||||||
| 18. Minneapolis | 50 | 40 | 27 | 13 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 13 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 10 | ||||||||
| 19. Seattle | 303 | 213 | 177 | 9 | 15 | 8 | 58 | 87 | 36 | 1 | 1 | 31 | 3 | 90 | ||||||||
| 20. San Francisco | 124 | 88 | 59 | 16 | 8 | 14 | 21 | 29 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 36 | ||||||
| 21. Los Angeles | 470 | 408 | 230 | 11 | 11 | 8 | 33 | 167 | 178 | 1 | 9 | 4 | 23 | 105 | 22 | 13 | 1 | 62 | ||||
| 22. Denver | 47 | 40 | 30 | 13 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 7 | |||||||
| Board | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Total | 3,454 | 2,690 | 1,966 | 603 | 189 | 177 | 314 | 677 | 6 | 724 | 30 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 54 | 30 | 44 | 370 | 102 | 66 | 8 | 764 |
- 1 Cases in which the Board assumed original jurisdiction because more than 1 region was involved or for other reasons.
383 of 383 figures sit in a row or column sum that works out. 8 cells break a sum: '2. New York', column 4: prints 328, columns 5 to 9 add to 325; '3. Buffalo', column 4: prints 36, columns 5 to 9 add to 34; '15. New Orleans', column 4: prints 96, columns 5 to 9 add to 95; 'Total', column 4: prints 1,966, columns 5 to 9 add to 1,960; '2. New York', column 3: prints 428, the subtotals in columns 4 to 11 add to 431; '3. Buffalo', column 3: prints 52, the subtotals in columns 4 to 11 add to 54; '15. New Orleans', column 3: prints 109, the subtotals in columns 4 to 11 add to 110; 'Total', column 3: prints 2,690, the subtotals in columns 4 to 11 add to 2,696.
Reader’s notes
p. 34. 23 columns. The two group heads "Cases closed before formal action" (cols 4-10) and "Cases closed after formal action" (cols 11-22) each cover a "Total" plus detail; under "After Board decision" the first column is "Withdrawn", then "Certification" (No election / Election) and "Dismissed" (No election / Election). The scan is a degraded 1-bit image and several glyphs are broken. Three cells I resolved against the printed totals, which all balance exactly once resolved: "9. Cincinnati" col 1 (docket) prints as a damaged first digit reading like "C9" — transcribed 99 (79 closed + 20 pending = 99, and the column foots to 3,454 only with 99); "12. Milwaukee" col 1 reads like "70" — transcribed 76 (57 + 19 = 76); "15. New Orleans" col 4 ("Cases closed before formal action — Total") reads like "90" — transcribed 96 (41+3+13+14+24+1 = 96, and 96 + 13 = 109 closed). If the intent is strict glyph fidelity, those three are the cells to re-check at higher resolution. "21. Los Angeles", col 8 ("Dismissed", before formal action) is printed with a stray tick before the digits, reading like "`33"; transcribed as 33, which is what the column total 314 requires. The single-digit cells in the three narrow columns "Dismissed" and "Withdrawn" (before Board decision) and "Withdrawn" (after Board decision) — grid columns 15, 16 and 17 — are the weakest part of this transcription; at this resolution a digit can sit visually between two column centres. I placed them so that every row total (col 11) and every column total in the Total row (8, 54 and 30 respectively) balances exactly, which they now do. The specific cells where I had to choose between adjacent columns: "4. Philadelphia" (a mark to the right of the 6 in "Withdrawn, before Board decision" looks like a 1, but the row sums to the printed 38 only if that cell is empty — I read it as the group rule, not a digit); "9. Cincinnati", "11. Indianapolis", "18. Minneapolis" and "19. Seattle". Each of these rows and every column foots correctly as transcribed, but the column assignment of those individual 1s and 2s is uncertain. Every other check balances: all six before-formal-action detail columns (603, 189, 177, 314, 677, 6) and all after-formal-action detail columns (30, 8, 4, 8, 54, 30, 44, 370, 102, 66, 8) sum to the printed Total row, and for every region docket = closed + pending and closed = before-formal + after-formal. The vertical string "275887—41——3" in the left margin is a printer's signature mark, not table content, and is omitted.
Source image
Source data: U.S. NLRB Annual Reports (public domain). Reconstruction by NLRB Stats Archive. Read by claude-opus-5 (effort max, prompt extract_v1) from the 300-dpi scan; stitched by page. Updated October 2026.