Types of Unfair Labor Practices Alleged, Fiscal Year 1965

p. 193. Layout: the page prints the table as two side-by-side panels with the same two column headings; the left panel (section A, its recapitulation, and section B) is transcribed first, then the right panel (recapitulation of 8(b), B1, B2 and section C), with the headings given once. Stub heads: "Subsections of Sec. 8(a)" and "Subsections of Sec. 8(b)" are printed on their own line above an indented "Total cases" line that carries the figures; they are kept as separate value-less rows. Any terminal period/colon after "8(a)"/"8(b)" is not legible and was omitted. Scan quality of the percent column: the decimal point is frequently lost in this scan (cells print as "100 0", "2 0", "50 6", "11 4", "16 8", "31 5", "8 0", "63 1", "30 8", "85 7", "14 3", etc.). Since the column is uniformly one decimal place, the point has been restored in those cells. In the row "8(a)(1)(4)(5)" the percent prints as a bare "0" and is read as ".0". "8(b)(7)(A)(B)" is printed with a leading zero, "0.8", unlike the other sub-1 percentages (".2", ".6"), and is left as printed. Doubtful digits (two cells where my reading of the glyph conflicts with the printed arithmetic): - Left panel, "8(b)(1)(2)", number column: the glyphs look like "1,237", but the printed percent 26.9 and the printed panel total 4,813 both require 1,297 (the other 16 detail rows sum to 3,516), and the recapitulation figures 8(b)(1) and 8(b)(2) independently give 1,297. Transcribed as 1,297. - Right panel, RECAPITULATION, "8(b)(1)", number column: the glyphs look like "3,305", but the printed percent 47.9 (of 4,813) and the sum of the left panel's nine 8(b)(1) rows both give 2,305. Transcribed as 2,305. All other figures cross-foot exactly (section A rows sum to 10,931 and its recapitulation lines to 669 / 7,367 / 284 / 3,815; section B recapitulation lines for (3), (5) and (6) are exact; B1 and B2 detail rows sum to 1,717 and 393). Two remaining internal inconsistencies, transcribed as printed: - B1: the detail rows containing (A) sum to 222 and those containing (B) to 1,155, while the recapitulation prints 212 and 1,165. Both discrepancies vanish if the row printed as "8(b)(4)(A)(C)" (10 cases) is in fact "8(b)(4)(B)(C)"; I read the letter as "A", so it is left as "A", but that label is the one doubtful row label on the page. - B2 recapitulation: 8(b)(7)(B) prints 27 (and 6.9 percent), while the detail rows containing (B) sum to 28. Other: the percent cell of "Against employers alone" holds a dash rule and is given as "". The label "Against union and employers" is printed over two lines ("em-/ployers."); its terminal period is dropped. The "B2" heading shows no period after "B2" in the scan; it is written "B2." to match "B1.". Two stray ink specks sit in the B1 recapitulation block (left of 1,165 and left of 1.9) and are not transcribed.