Analysis of Stages of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1958

p. 163. Crop: the table is cut off at the bottom. The last printed row visible is "Dismissed" (35 / .5 / 22 / .4 / 6 / .3 / 5 / 1.0 / 2 / 1.4) under "After Board decision, before court decree", followed by a closing double rule at the image edge. Further stage rows must follow on the rest of the page: the visible stage subtotals sum to 7,170 of the 7,289 total (98.3 of 100.0 percent), so about 119 cases / 1.7 percent of the All C column is below the crop. No footnote texts are visible in the crop, although markers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are used in it, hence the empty footnotes list. Decimal points: this impression is light and the decimal point in the percent columns is frequently broken or invisible in the scan, so many cells photograph as e.g. "100 0", "91 3", "92 2", "12 8", "1 7". Every percent in this table is printed to one decimal place, and the column arithmetic confirms it (e.g. CC "After issuance of complaint": 4.6 + .8 + 5.3 + 2.1 + .0 = 12.8; All C "After Board decision": 1.7 + .5 = 2.2). I have therefore written the decimal point in every percent cell. Two cells are the most doubtful of these, each photographing as a bare "0" where its column neighbours read ".0": "Adjusted" (the one under "After hearing opened, before issuance of intermediate report") in the CC "Percent of cases closed" column, and "Compliance with consent decree" (same group) in the CD "Percent of cases closed" column. Both are transcribed ".0". Footnote markers: in the CD "Number of cases" column the raised markers are printed to the LEFT of the figure (2 26, 3 86, 4 31); following the stated convention they are written after the value as 26^2, 86^3, 31^4. The cells reading "(^5)" are printed as a parenthesised raised 5, the usual NLRB device for a quantity too small to show at this rounding; the whole cell is that reference, so the marker is kept inside the parentheses. Printed-rounding quirks, transcribed as printed and not corrected: CC "Compliance with consent decree" (after issuance of complaint) shows 5.3 where 25/479 = 5.22, and the CC stage line shows 12.8 where 61/479 = 12.74 — both agree with the sum of the rounded component percentages rather than with a direct computation. CA "Before issuance of complaint" shows 92.2 where 4,433/4,805 = 92.26, again matching the component sum 9.2 + 49.9 + 33.1. Row-label joins: "After intermediate report, before issuance of Board decision—Compliance" is printed over two lines with "Com- pliance" hyphenated at the line break, and "After Board order adopting intermediate report in absence of exceptions" with "excep- tions" hyphenated; both are joined here. The "All C cases" heading carries no footnote marker, while CA, CB, CC and CD each carry a raised 1.

p. 164. This crop continues a table from the preceding page: no column headings are printed, so header_rows is empty. The grid has 11 columns — the stub plus five number/percent pairs — inferred from the vertical column rules. Decimal points: the scan drops or thins the period in several percent cells, which print as "1 3", "1 0", "1 6", "1 9" (rows "After circuit court decree, before Supreme Court action" col 2; "Compliance" cols 4, 6, 8) and as a bare "1" in the "Dismissed" row, col 4. Every neighbouring value in those columns carries one decimal place, so I transcribed them as 1.3, 1.0, 1.6, 1.9 and .1 respectively; if a strictly literal rendering is wanted, those five cells show a gap rather than a visible point. The "Otherwise" row has a raised footnote reference 5 in parentheses standing in place of a percentage in columns 2 and 4; I wrote it as (^5). Footnote 4 ends without a period as printed. Footnote markers 1–4 are referenced on the earlier part of the table, not on this crop. A faint stray mark sits in the right margin below the last rule, above footnote 1; it is not a table value.