Types of unfair labor practices alleged in charges filed during the fiscal year 1948

p. 107. LAYOUT: the crop holds three lettered sections (A, B, C) of Table 3, and each section is itself printed as two side-by-side panels carrying the same three columns. Each section's panels have been stacked: all of the left panel's rows first, then the right panel's. The lettered section captions (A., B., C.) are printed between the sections as label-only lines and are carried as rows so the three sections stay distinguishable; the italic stub labels (\"Subsections of Sec. 8 of NLRA\", \"Recapitulation\", and the \"—Continued\" repeats that head each right-hand panel) are likewise label-only rows.\n\nHEADINGS: the three column headings are printed only once, in the heading box of section A (repeated across A's two panels). Sections B and C print no column headings at all — their top box carries only the italic stub label — so the headings are given once, as instructed.\n\nFOOTNOTE CELLS: in the Percent of total column, rows \"8 (a) (1) (4)\" and \"8 (a) (1) (3) (4) (5)\" print a raised parenthesised 1, \"(¹)\", standing in place of a percentage (meaning \"less than 0.1 percent\"). These are transcribed \"(^1)\" — a footnote reference, not the value 1.\n\nDOUBTFUL CELL RESOLVED BY ARITHMETIC: the count for \"8 (a) (1) (3)\" (section B) is broken in the scan and could be read 1,480 or 1,486. It is transcribed 1,486, which is what three independent printed checks require: the section B counts then sum to exactly the printed total 2,553; 1486/2553 = 58.2, the printed percent; and the printed recapitulation line 8 (a) (3) = 1,821 less the other (3)-bearing rows (67+16+177+3+67+1+4 = 335) leaves 1,486. A reading of 1,480 fails all three.\n\nARITHMETIC VERIFICATION: every count was cross-checked. Section A rows sum to 296 and its recapitulation lines 8 (2)=11, 8 (3)=217, 8 (4)=5, 8 (5)=82 all reproduce from the detail rows; section B rows sum to 2,553 and its recapitulation lines 197 / 1,821 / 25 / 705 all reproduce; section C's 16 left-panel rows (645) plus 17 right-panel rows (104) sum to the printed total 749. No count is in doubt apart from the cell named above.\n\nPRINTED ROUNDING ODDITIES (transcribed as printed, not corrected): \"8 (1) (3) (5)\" 30 is shown as 10.2 (30/296 = 10.1); \"8 (a) (1) (3) (5)\" 177 as 7.0 (6.9); \"8 (b) (1) (4)\" 61 as 8.2 (8.1); and the three counts of 10 in section C as 1.4 (1.3). These are misprints or an unusual rounding rule in the original.\n\nThe single footnote \"1 Less than 0.1 percent.\" is printed between sections B and C and belongs to section B.

p. 108. The page carries two lettered sections of Table 3 (C-1 and D), each set as two side-by-side panels sharing one set of column headings. Both sections are transcribed in the three columns of a single panel, left panel first then right panel, with the lettered section titles ("C-1. RECAPITULATION ..." and "D. CHARGES FILED ...") kept as label-only rows at the head of each section; the column headings, printed only over section C-1, are given once in header_rows. Section D repeats no column headings of its own. The italic panel-head lines ("Subsections of Sec. 8 (b) of LMRA", "Analysis of Sec. 8 (b) (1)", "Recapitulation", etc.) are label-only rows. The two "—Continued" ones are the right-hand panels' repeated panel heads, not table-caption continuation lines, so they are retained; they mark where the right panel begins in each section. Percent style is inconsistent as printed: the left panel of section D prints ".3" and ".6" with no leading zero, while the right panel prints "0.3". Transcribed as printed in each case. Row "8 (b) (4) (D) (C)" is printed with D before C, out of the alphabetical order used by the neighbouring combination rows; the reading is confirmed by the Recapitulation arithmetic (that case is counted in both the C total of 20 and the D total of 71). No misprints detected. Internal checks: section D's listed cases sum to the printed Total of 311, and every printed percent in section D matches its value over 311. Section C-1's percents are all consistent with an unprinted base of 749 cases; they sum to more than 100 because a case may allege several subsections. No footnotes, footnote markers or source line are printed under the table. The caption and "—Continued" line were omitted as instructed. Nothing appears cut off by the crop.