Types of Unfair Labor Practices Alleged, Fiscal Year 1969

p. 210. Layout: the table is printed as two side-by-side panels sharing one pair of column headings; the left panel's rows (section A through the end of the 8(b) subsection list) are given first, then the right panel's rows (the 8(b) recapitulation through section C). The stub heading is blank in both panels, and a stray short dash sits above "Percent of total cases" in the left panel's heading box (scan artifact, not text). Footnotes: the footnote block is cut off by the bottom edge of the crop. Only the upper half of the first line of footnote 1 is visible; it appears to begin "A single case may include allegations of violations of more than one subsection of the ...", but too little is legible to transcribe reliably, and footnote 2 (marker on the recapitulation row "8(a)(1)^2") is not visible at all. Hence footnotes is empty. Doubtful wording. (a) The section A heading reads, as printed, "CHARGES FILED AGAINST EMPLOYEES UNDER SEC. 8(a)"; since Sec. 8(a) charges are filed against employers, this is either a misprint or a misreading of "EMPLOYERS" at this scan resolution. (b) All four section headings read "RECAPULATION" rather than the usual "RECAPITULATION"; transcribed as they appear, but the glyphs are not fully resolvable. Arithmetic discrepancy: the left panel's "Subsections of Sec. 8(a): Total cases" is transcribed as printed, 12,002, but the 15 combination rows below it sum to 12,022, which is also the figure printed in the recapitulation row "8(a)(1)^2". The percents in section A are consistent with a 12,022 base (e.g. 6,410/12,022 = 53.3 as printed, whereas 6,410/12,002 would round to 53.4), so the printed total of 12,002 looks like an error; it may also be a 0/2 misread of a faint digit. Everything else reconciles: the 8(b) detail rows sum to the printed 6,577, and every recapitulation and analysis line equals the sum of its component rows. The only other printed oddity is 8(b)(7) = 489 shown as 7.5 percent of 6,577 (7.4 by calculation), in both the detail list and the recapitulation. Missing decimal points: the scan drops the period in several percent cells, which are printed as "7 9" (8(a)(1)), "9 9" (8(a)(1)(3)(5)), "100 0" (recapitulation row 8(a)(1)^2, and the "Total cases 8(b)(4)" row) and "32 7" ("Against union and employers"); these are rendered here as 7.9, 9.9, 100.0, 100.0 and 32.7 to match the one-decimal format used throughout the column. The 8(b)(2) percent is printed with a comma-shaped mark ("2,2") and is given as 2.2; the recapitulation cell 8(b)(4)(B) has a stray mark after "68.9" and is given as 68.9. All of these readings agree with the computed percentages. Row labels are printed with spaces around the parentheses ("8 (a) (1) (2)"); the spaces are closed up here. "B1" is printed without a period, "B2." with one.