Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Jurisdictional Dispute Cases Closed Prior to Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings, Fiscal Year 1969

p. 222. Three columns throughout; no panel split. The footnote 1 marker is attached to the caption (excluded per instructions); the footnote line itself sits at the very bottom edge of the crop and its lower half is cut off, so it is read partly from its visible upper strokes — the wording \"1 See \"Glossary\" for definitions of terms.\" is legible but not crisp.\n\nIn three percent cells the decimal point did not survive the scan and the value reads with a gap: \"45 2\" (Agreement of the parties—Informal settlement), \"40 4\" (the Before 10(k) notice line under it) and \"4 9\" (Compliance with Board decision and determination of dispute). I transcribed these as 45.2, 40.4 and 4.9, since every other value in that column is printed to one decimal and the three read as intended decimals; no digits are in doubt, only the dropped points.\n\nFour percent cells hold a dash rule (\"- - - -\") against a printed 0 in the number column; these are given as \"\" per the rule for dash-rule cells. The percent cell for the smallest entry is printed \".4\" with no leading zero, transcribed as printed.\n\nThe printed figures are internally consistent: 238+26+191+72 = 527 and 45.2+4.9+36.2+13.7 = 100.0; each block's indented lines also sum to its heading line (213+25+0 = 238, 174+8+0+9 = 191, 61+2+0+9 = 72). Nothing appears misprinted.