Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1969

p. 219. Crop is cut off at the bottom: the last body row's label is truncated mid-phrase ("Compliance with", with leader dots running to the column rule; the continuation of the label and any further rows are below the crop). The caption carries a superscript 1 and one data cell carries "(2)", but no footnote text is visible on this image, so `footnotes` is empty. Column structure: 16 columns — stub, then All C cases (Number / Percent of total cases / Percent of total method) and six case-type panels (CA, CB, CC, CD, CE, CP), each Number / Percent of total closed. These are repeated headings over one continuous table, not side-by-side panels. Dropped decimal points: in this 1-bit scan several percent cells print the decimal point so faintly it reads as a space — "22 7" (CA, Informal settlement:), "16 1" (CA, Before issuance of complaint), "40 2" (CC, Informal settlement:), "2 0" (All C Percent of total method, After hearing opened...trial examiner's decision), and "0 4" (CD, in the rows After hearing opened...decision / Stipulated decision / After hearing opened). All other cells in those columns are printed to one decimal, and each value checks out arithmetically, so they are transcribed with the decimal point restored. Doubtful cell — CC cases / Number, row "Before issuance of complaint": the glyphs read 523 and are transcribed as printed, but both internal checks imply 532: the informal-settlement components would be 523+71+2 = 596 against the printed CC subtotal of 605, and the printed percent 35.4 corresponds to 532/1,505 (523/1,505 = 34.8). This is either a misprint in the source or a digit pair I could not resolve at this resolution; no correction was applied. Doubtful cell — CP cases / Percent of total closed, row "Consent decree" (the one under "After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing"): the final digit is ink-filled and could be read 1.8; transcribed 1.3, which matches 6/478 = 1.3 and matches the identically-valued cell two rows above. Minor arithmetic note (transcribed as printed, not corrected): All C cases / Percent of total method for "After hearing opened" shows 1.2, while 57/4,453 = 1.28; and CD cases / Percent of total closed shows 1.2 for "Agreement of the parties" (6/545 = 1.1) and 0.8 for "Formal settlement" (4/545 = 0.7). The "(2)" in CD cases / Number, row "Before issuance of complaint", is printed in parentheses with "---" in the adjacent percent column; the CD informal-settlement subtotal (2 = 0 + 2 from the two rows below) implies this cell carries no count, so "(2)" is most likely a reference to footnote 2 rather than a value. Transcribed exactly as it appears. Row labels joined from their printed multi-line form with end-of-line hyphens repaired ("Informal settle-ment:", "After hearing opened, be-fore issuance of trial ex-aminer's decision", etc.). Leader dots dropped; dash rules ("---", "-------") rendered as empty cells.

p. 220. CROP SCOPE: this is a middle slice of a continuing table. No column headings are printed anywhere on the image, so header_rows is empty. The grid has 16 columns: the stub plus 15 numeric columns, verified from the vertical rules and from fully populated rows (e.g. "Board decision": 459, 2.4, 45.9, 348, 2.8, 34, 0.9, 48, 3.2, 4, 0.8, 4, 4.1, 21, 4.4). The structure implied by the rules is 3 columns for the total group (count, percent, percent-of-subtotal) followed by six count/percent pairs. The crop is cut off at the top (the first visible row "Trial examiner's decision" continues a section begun on the preceding page) and at the bottom (the last row, "Adopting trial examiner's decision (no exceptions filed)", sits at the very edge and the table continues below). No footnote block is visible. A rotated running head and page number along the right edge were ignored. DROPPED DECIMAL POINTS: this is a coarse bitonal scan and the decimal point is missing or reduced to a white gap in many percent cells. Where the column is unambiguously a one-decimal percent column I have written the point back in. The affected cells, by row label and numeric column number (1 = first numeric column after the stub): Board decision col 2 ("2 4" -> 2.4) and col 8 ("3 2" -> 3.2); Adopting trial examiner's decision (no exceptions filed) [first occurrence] col 2 ("0 4") and col 4 ("0 4"); Contested col 3 ("38 7") and col 10 ("0 8"); Circuit court of appeals decree col 3 ("35 7") and col 8 ("0 9"); Supreme Court action col 3 ("6 6"); After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing [withdrawal section] col 8 ("0 6"); After Board or court decision col 3 ("0 1"); Dismissal col 3 ("100 0") and col 5 ("33 1"); Before issuance of complaint [dismissal section] col 15 ("18 8"); After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing [dismissal section] col 2 ("0 1"); After hearing opened, before trial examiner's decision [dismissal section] col 5 ("0 1"); By Trial examiner's decision col 2 ("0 0"); By Board decision col 2 ("1 3") and col 8 ("1 3"); Adopting trial examiner's decision (no exceptions filed) [final row] col 2 ("0 3"). DOUBTFUL CELL: in the "Withdrawal" row, numeric column 13 is printed as "368" with no visible decimal point and no gap between the digits. A value of 368 is impossible in a percent column, and the row directly beneath it ("Before issuance of complaint", which carries the identical count of 36 in column 12) prints "36.8" in the same column, so I transcribed it as 36.8. If a literal rendering is wanted, the ink on the page reads "368". PARENTHESISED CELLS: numeric column 10 holds "(2)" in both "Before issuance of complaint" rows (the withdrawal section and the dismissal section). These are printed inside parentheses in a count column where the neighbouring section totals read 1 and 0 respectively, so they appear to be a footnote reference standing in place of a value rather than a count of two; the referenced footnote is not on this crop. Transcribed literally as "(2)". ROW LABELS: end-of-line hyphens repaired ("ex- aminer's" -> examiner's, "de- cision" -> decision, "be- fore" -> before, "hear- ing" -> hearing, "open- ed" -> opened). The scan drops the dot on several letter i's ("Wıthdrawal", "decis on", "complaınt", "Trıal", "exceptıons"); these are rendered as the ordinary words. Capitalisation is kept as printed, including the capital T in "By Trial examiner's decision". DUPLICATE LABELS: several labels repeat because the withdrawal and dismissal sections use parallel breakdowns; they are distinct rows and are given in printed order. No arithmetic was checked, computed or corrected.

p. 221. Crop is a continuation page: the column headings are reprinted, but the body begins mid-table. The first three rows ("Contested", "By circuit court of appeals decree", "By Supreme Court action") are indented sub-items whose parent category heading sits on the preceding page and is therefore not in this crop; "By circuit court of appeals decree" and "By Supreme Court action" are further indented under "Contested". Decimal points dropped by the scan: several percent cells print with a visible gap where the period has been lost to the 1-bit rendering — All C cases "Percent of total cases" for "Contested" (reads "1 0") and for "By circuit court of appeals decree" (reads "0 4"); CC cases "Percent of total closed" for "By circuit court of appeals decree" (reads "0 1"); CA cases "Percent of total closed" for "By Supreme Court action" (reads "0 0") and for the "Otherwise ..." row (reads "0 1"). I have written these as 1.0, 0.4, 0.1, 0.0 and 0.1 respectively; each is consistent with the implied column totals (approx. 19,000 total C cases, 12,000 CA, 1,540 CC). Empty-looking cells: cells holding a short dash rule ("---" or "--") are transcribed as "". In the "10(k) actions" and "Otherwise ..." rows the All C cases "Percent of total method" cell holds a long dashed rule ("-------"), also transcribed as "". CE cases, "Contested" row: the percent reads 33.7 against a count of 33, which is unusually high but consistent with roughly 98 CE cases closed; transcribed as printed. Footnote wording: the scan degrades two words in footnote 2 — the text reads close to "cased" and "juricdictional". I have transcribed them as "cases" and "jurisdictional", which is almost certainly the printed text; a reader wanting the literal glyphs should check the original. No footnote reference marker (1 or 2) is visible anywhere within this crop; both markers are presumably attached to the table caption or to rows on the earlier page.