Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1954

p. 173. Grid is 11 columns: stub plus five two-column panels (All C, CA, CB, CC, CD), each panel "Number of cases" then "Percent of cases closed". Scan artifacts and restored characters: this is a coarse bitonal scan in which the decimal point in the percent columns very often fails to reproduce, printing as a gap or dropping out entirely ("100 0", "83. 4", "13 4", "41 8", and bare "7", "5", "2", "0" where a one-decimal percentage belongs). I have transcribed these as the decimals they are (100.0, 83.4, 13.4, 41.8, .7, .5, .2, .0); no value was otherwise altered. The same scan loses the dots on many letter i's ("complamt", "openmg", "decisıon", "adoptıng", "Complıance"); row labels are given with normal spelling. Column assignment was cross-checked against the printed stage totals and every block sums exactly: 799+2,493+1,673+10 = 4,975; 151+8+81+72+20+1 = 333; 43+50+6+5 = 104; 46+3+3+1 = 53; 14+39+1 = 54, and likewise in each of CA, CB, CC, CD. Doubtful or notable cells: - "Dismissed" under "After issuance of complaint", All C percent: read as ".4"; 20 of 5,962 computes to .3, so this may be a misprint or a misread of a faint 3. Transcribed as printed. - "After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing", CD percent: a small raised speck sits immediately before 1.4. It may be a footnote marker but is illegible, so the cell is given as "1.4" alone. (1.4 is confirmed by the CD sub-rows, which sum to 1.4.) - Similar isolated specks appear just right of the All C "(11)" in the first "Otherwise" row and just right of the CB "2" in the "Compliance" row under "After intermediate report"; both treated as dirt, not markers. - Cells reading "(11)" are footnote-11 references printed in place of a percentage (the usual "less than .05 percent" device); transcribed literally as "(11)". Footnote markers visible on this crop are 1 (on 5,962), 7, 8, 9 and 10 (on CD values) plus the "(11)" references; markers 2 through 6 do not appear anywhere on this image, so they are presumably attached to values on the continuation page or are too faint to see here. The table is cut off at the bottom by the crop: a closing double rule follows the last row, but later disposition stages (after Board decision, etc.) and all footnote texts, including footnotes 1 and 11 referenced above, are not on this image. footnotes is therefore empty.

p. 174. CROP: this is a continuation page, so no column headings are printed and header_rows is empty. The grid has 11 columns: the stub plus 10 value columns, which alternate count/percent across five case groups (count, percent, count, percent, ...). The caption, the earlier rows of the table and the headings are on the preceding page. DECIMAL POINTS: the scan is a coarse 1-bit image and the decimal points in the percent columns frequently drop out, so many cells render as e.g. "4 3", "2 2", "1 8", "3 4", "2 6", "1 6". I have restored these as 4.3, 2.2, 1.8, 3.4, 2.6, 1.6 etc., because every percent column in this table carries exactly one decimal place and because the restored values reconcile with the block totals (see below). The same dropout affects two cells where only a bare digit is visible: "Dismissed" under "After circuit court decree" shows "9" in column 4 and "4" in column 6, transcribed as .9 and .4; and "Withdrawn" under "After Supreme Court denied writ of certiorari" shows "5" in column 8, transcribed as .5. All three are confirmed by the block sums. ZERO PERCENT CELLS — the main residual doubt: a zero in a percent column is printed ".0" in most places on this page but renders as a bare "0" in a handful of cells. I transcribed each one exactly as it reads rather than normalizing, so the following cells hold "0" where the rest of the table holds ".0", and the leading point may simply have dropped out of the scan: "Withdrawn" (first block) column 8; "Otherwise" (first block) column 10; "After Board order adopting intermediate report..." columns 6 and 8; "Withdrawn" (certiorari block) column 10; "After Supreme Court opinion" column 8; "Compliance" (Supreme Court opinion block) column 6; "Dismissed" (Supreme Court opinion block) columns 8 and 10. These cells are all genuinely zero either way, so the distinction is typographic rather than numeric. FOOTNOTE-REFERENCE CELLS: six cells contain no number at all, only a raised "(11)" referring to the footnote "Less than one-tenth of 1 percent." I have written these as ^11, following the caret convention for markers, since there is no value for the marker to attach to. SUSPECTED MISPRINT: the row label reads "After circuit court decree, before Supreme Count action" — "Count" where "Court" is clearly intended. I transcribed it as printed. The scan resolves "r" correctly elsewhere in the same label ("circuit court decree") and in the two neighbouring labels ("After Supreme Court denied writ of certiorari", "After Supreme Court opinion"), which argues this is a genuine typesetting error in the report rather than a scan artefact, but I cannot rule the latter out entirely. DOUBTFUL MARKER: the marker on "7" in the "Otherwise" row of the "After circuit court decree" block reads as a raised 5 to me, so I transcribed 7^5 (footnote 5, "Includes 2 NLRA cases."). It could be a 6; the two glyphs are nearly identical at this resolution. Note that the markers on this page are not in strict reading order — markers 7 through 10 do not appear in this crop and must sit on rows earlier in the table, so sequence gives no help in disambiguating. The marker on the final "Dismissed" row reads clearly as 6. STRAY MARK: a small hyphen-like speck sits to the left of the "0" in column 9 of the "Compliance" row in the "After Supreme Court opinion" block. I read it as a printing speck, not a minus sign, and transcribed the cell as "0" — every other cell in column 9 on this page is also 0. ARITHMETIC CHECK: every section on this page reconciles. Counts: 131+1+110+16=258, 104+1+88+11=204, 20+0+13+1=34, 7+0+3+0=10; 99+49+7=155, 81+43+5=129, 13+4+0=17, 2+0+0=2; 20+1+1=22, 15+0+1=16; 4+1=5. Percents likewise: 2.2+1.8+.3=4.3, 2.3+1.9+.2=4.4, 1.9+1.2+.1=3.2, 3.4+1.5=4.9; 1.7+.8+.1=2.6, 1.8+.9+.1=2.8, 1.2+.4=1.6, 1.0=1.0; .0+.5+.0=.5. No printed total on this page disagrees with its components. FOOTNOTE PUNCTUATION: footnotes 3 and 10 end without a period, as printed; the others end with one.