Analysis of Stages of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1961

p. 239. Crop/completeness: the image ends at a double rule below the last "Otherwise" row and no footnote block is printed on it, so `footnotes` is empty even though markers 1-5 are used in the body; the notes (including the text of footnotes 1-5) must be on the continuation/next page. Decimal points: this is a coarse 1-bit scan and almost every decimal point in the percent columns has dropped out, so values print as e.g. "100 0", "83 2", "13 6". They are transcribed with the decimal restored ("100.0", "83.2", "13.6"), the same repair the instructions prescribe for "8, 044". Percents below 1 are set without a leading zero (nothing is printed left of the gap, and true zeros print as a plain "0" elsewhere in the same columns), so they are transcribed as ".8", ".4", ".1", etc. Footnote references in value cells: the parenthesised raised digit used for percents under 0.05 is read as "(5)". The glyph is too small to separate 4 from 5 with certainty, but markers 2, 3 and 4 are attached to the CD counts in the "Before issuance of complaint" block (58^2, 123^3, 51^4) and 1 is on the column headings, which makes 5 the consistent reading. Those three CD markers are printed as raised digits to the LEFT of the numbers and have been written after the value per the convention. Stray ink: a short horizontal mark crosses the first "Adjusted" row at the All C percent cell (read 13.6) and another sits over the CB count in the same row (read 261). Column sums confirm 261 (1,073+261+229+58+7+23 = 1,651) and 13.6 matches 1,651/12,116. Arithmetic cross-checks: every count column reconciles exactly - each block's sub-rows sum to its block total, the seven case-type counts sum to the All C count, and the four block totals sum to 12,116 - so the number cells are solid. A handful of percent cells differ by one in the last digit from the ratio they should represent, and these are the least certain readings in the grid: All C "Adjusted" after issuance of complaint 4.2 (497/12,116 = 4.1); CC "Withdrawn" before complaint 35.7 (316/887 = 35.6); CE "Adjusted" 20.7 (7/34 = 20.6); CA "Dismissed" before complaint 30.1 (2,439/8,117 = 30.0); CP "Adjusted" after complaint 3.8 (11/283 = 3.9); CA "Withdrawn" and CB "Adjusted" in the hearing-opened block (.5 each, against .4); CB "Compliance with consent decree" .9 (21/2,556 = .8); and the All C 51 count appearing as .4 in one block and .5 in another. All are transcribed as read, uncorrected.

p. 240. Crop is a continuation page: no column headings are printed, so header_rows is empty. The grid has 15 columns — the stub plus 7 Number/Percent pairs (column 1-2 is the all-cases pair; columns 3-14 are six case-type pairs, matching the stub-free headings on the earlier page of this table). Decimal points: in every percent column the scan renders the decimal point as a blank gap (e.g. the cell for "After Board decision, before court decree" reads visually as "3 8"), and one-digit percents show only the digit with the leading point lost (".3" appears as "3"). I have transcribed them with the decimal points. This is supported by arithmetic: in each percent column the component rows sum exactly to the section total only on the decimal reading (col. 2: 2.4 + (5) + 1.3 + .1 = 3.8; col. 4: 2.9 + 0 + 1.5 + (5) = 4.4; col. 6: 1.8 + .1 + 1.2 + (5) = 3.1; col. 8: 1.6 + 0 + .3 + 0 = 1.9), and the implied bases (about 12,055 all cases; 8,100 / 2,548 / 890 / 231 / 286 by type) are internally consistent across all three sections and sum correctly. No leading zero is printed before the decimal point, so one-digit percents are given as ".3", ".4", ".1". Zero percents are printed as a single "0", not "0.0". "(5)" in a percent cell is the footnote-5 marker ("Less than one-tenth of 1 percent") printed in parentheses in place of a value; the digit inside the parentheses is broken in the scan and could be read as 5 or 6 — I read it as 5 because the preceding footnotes are numbered 1 through 4. The marker that opens the last footnote line is likewise degraded; I have written it as "5". Footnote 4: the first figure is read as "39" but the second digit is slightly broken and could be "0" ("30"). Footnote markers 2, 3 and 4 are keyed to rows on the earlier part of this table, above the crop; no row or value on this image carries a visible marker. The vertical string "616401—62——16" down the left margin is the GPO signature/imprint mark, outside the table, and is not transcribed.