Types of Unfair Labor Practices Alleged, Fiscal Year 1961

p. 233. PANEL FOLDING: each of the four sections (A, B, C, D) is printed as two panels side by side under one set of column headings. I have folded them, giving each section's left-panel rows first, then its right-panel rows, with the section line kept above its own block. So in section A the right panel supplied 8(a)(3)-8(a)(5); in section B, 8(b)(3)-8(b)(7); in section C, the whole \"Total cases 8(b)(7)\" block (Total cases 8(b)(7), 8(b)(7)(A)-(C)). Section D's right panel is empty (no rows printed there).\n\nLOST DOTS IN THE SCAN: this reproduction has dropped nearly every small dot (the caption itself prints \"Fiscal\" with a dotless i). Consequently the percent column shows gaps where decimal points belong (\"100 0\", \"76 7\", \"55 4\"). Because every value in that column is a one-decimal percent and the figures reconcile with the counts (e.g. 6,240/8,136 = 76.7), I have restored the decimal points; no digits were altered. Likewise \"2 181\" in row 8(b)(1) is printed with a faint/absent thousands comma and is transcribed as \"2,181\" (its neighbour 1,958 shows its comma clearly). For 8(b)(5) and 8(b)(6) the percent cells show a single glyph; these are sub-1-percent values printed without a leading zero, transcribed \".3\" and \".4\" (13/3,939 = 0.3; 17/3,939 = 0.4).\n\nSECTION LINES: the centred section headings render as \"SEO\" where \"SEC.\" is meant, again from the dropped period fusing with the C; the periods after the leading letters A/B/C/D are also not visible at this resolution. I have transcribed them as \"A. ... SEC. 8(a)\" etc.\n\nFOOTNOTE MARKERS: the superscript on the 8(a)(1) row (both cells) is degraded and could be read as 3 or 8, but footnote 2 is specifically about 8(a)(1), so I transcribed it as ^2. The markers on the \"Total cases\" rows and on \"Total cases 8(b)(4)\" / \"Total cases 8(b)(7)\" / their percents are all ^1. All markers are printed to the LEFT of the value and have been moved behind a caret per the convention.\n\nCROP: footnote 2 is cut off by the bottom edge of the crop mid-sentence (\"...interference with the rights of the\"); at least one further line of it exists on the page and is not transcribable here.\n\nAS-PRINTED ODDITY (not corrected): in section A, row 8(a)(1) repeats the total-cases figure exactly (8,136, 100.0), which is what footnote 2 explains rather than a misprint. In section B the component percentages (55.4 + 49.7 + 5.5 + 28.0 + .3 + .4 + 8.0) exceed 100 — expected, per footnote 1, since a case may allege more than one section.