Analysis of Stages of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1959

p. 179. Crop ends immediately below the table's closing rule, so no footnote text is visible; markers 1 (on the CA/CB/CC/CD column headings), 2, 3, 4 (on three CD "Number of cases" values) and 5 (the "(5)" cells) are all referenced but their texts are cut off. Decimal points: this is a 1-bit scan in which the period in the percent columns frequently fails to print. Many percent cells therefore appear as e.g. "100 0", "93 4", "10 8", "15 6", "2 9", "3 7", or as a bare "5"/"0"/"2"/"3" where a leading ".5"/".0"/".2"/".3" belongs. Because every percent column is uniformly one-decimal and the digits are decimal-aligned, I restored the points; no percent cell was otherwise altered. Cells where the point is clearly visible (e.g. CD "100.0", CB "49.0", CC "5.9") are printed that way. The "(5)" cells are a parenthesised raised 5 standing alone as the whole cell value (the conventional NLRB "less than 0.05 percent" reference); I wrote them as "(5)" rather than with a caret since there is no value for the marker to attach to. In the CD "Number of cases" column the raised markers are printed *before* the figures ("²47", "³93", "⁴59"); per the convention I placed them after, as 47^2, 93^3, 59^4. The raised 3 on 93 is faint and could conceivably be another glyph. Doubtful readings, all in the percent columns: CA "Dismissed" (under "Before issuance of complaint") reads 38.6, but 3,016/7,825 = 38.5, so this is either a misprint or a 5/6 confusion. All C "Dismissed" (under "After Board order…") reads .2 where 17/11,465 = .15; CC "After intermediate report…" reads 1.2 where 6/525 = 1.1; CA and All C values of .5 against 35/7,825 and 51/11,465 (both ≈ .44) are likewise arithmetically high. I transcribed all of these as printed and did not adjust them. Several other small percents are internally inconsistent with their own numerators (e.g. CC "3" shown as .5 in three places, CB "4" shown as .2), which is consistent with the original's rounding rather than with a reading error. The first column rule has a wavy scan distortion crossing the "Withdrawn" row in the "After hearing opened" block; it does not obscure any value.

p. 180. The crop is the foot of a table continued from the preceding page: no column headings are printed on this image, so header_rows is empty. Column count (stub + 10 numeric, read as five number/percent pairs) is taken from the vertical column rules; the pairing of the numeric columns into case-type groups is not visible on this crop. Faint decimal points: in the first body row the eighth numeric cell is printed with a very faint point ("2 5"), transcribed as 2.5; likewise the "Compliance" row's eighth cell ("1 5"), transcribed as 1.5; and the "Dismissed" row's second cell, where the leading point is nearly lost and the glyph reads almost as a bare "1", transcribed as .1. All three readings are corroborated by the printed column arithmetic (.7 + .1 = .8; 1.5 + 1.0 + .0 = 2.5; .9 + .5 + .0 = 1.4), but the points themselves are doubtful in the scan. Cells reading "(5)" are a parenthesized raised 5, i.e. a reference to footnote 5 ("Less than one-tenth of 1 percent") standing alone in the cell rather than attached to a value; they are transcribed literally as printed, without a caret. The footnote markers are raised numerals rendered poorly by the scan; the second one in particular reads ambiguously, but the sequence 1-2-3-4-5 and the footnote contents make the numbering clear. Column sums within the "After circuit court decree" block are internally consistent (78+14+1=93, 44+5+1=50, 24+3+0=27, 8+5+0=13, 2+1+0=3), so no misprint is suspected.