Analysis of Method of Disposition of Jurisdictional Dispute Cases Closed Prior to Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings, Fiscal Year 1965

p. 203. Three printed columns; one heading level. The table caption carries footnote marker 1 (recorded separately from the grid).\n\nPunctuation loss in this 1-bit scan: decimal points and sentence periods are largely dropped. In the \"Percent of total closed\" column the values image as \"100 0\", \"33 9\", \"31 0\", \"2 7\", \"9 6\", \"38 0\", \"34 6\", \"2 5\", \"18 5\", \"14 1\", \"4 0\"; I have written the decimal point that the column alignment and the arithmetic both require (31.0+2.7+.2 = 33.9; 34.6+2.5+.9 = 38.0; 14.1+.2+.2+4.0 = 18.5; 33.9+9.6+38.0+18.5 = 100.0). Four cells in that column image as a bare single digit sitting in the tenths position — \"After opening of 10(k) hearing, before issuance of Board decision and determination of dispute\" under the settlement block, \"After Board decision and determination of dispute\" under Withdrawal, and the two sub-1-percent lines under Dismissal; these are the report's usual leading-point form and are transcribed .2, .9, .2, .2 respectively. If a strictly literal rendering is wanted, those cells read 2, 9, 2, 2 on the page image.\n\nThe footnote likewise images with no sentence periods (\"prior year's table Note\", \"instead of stage See\"); the wide gaps indicate dropped periods, which I have restored. \"See\" images as \"Sec\" and the closing quotation mark after Glossary is degraded.\n\nNumber column verifies: 139+12+1 = 152, 155+11+4 = 170, 63+1+1+18 = 83, and 152+43+170+83 = 448. No misprints detected.\n\nIndentation (not representable in the grid): \"Agreement of the parties—Informal settlement\", \"Compliance with Board decision and determination of dispute\", \"Withdrawal\" and \"Dismissal\" are the four flush-left method categories summing to 448; the other lines are indented stage breakdowns under the category above them.