Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1974

p. 223. Crop is cut off at the bottom: the table body continues past "Board decision" (the column rules run to the bottom edge), and no footnote block is visible, so `footnotes` is empty even though markers 1 (on the caption) and 2 (in the body) are referenced. Decimal points: this is a 1-bit scan in which many of the periods in the percent columns failed to print, so cells read as e.g. "100 0", "19 2", "0 6", "1 2". Every percent in this table is printed to one decimal place, so I have written them with the decimal point ("100.0", "19.2", "0.6", "1.2"). No digits were altered. Affected cells are scattered throughout the percent columns; the clearest examples are the "100 0" entries in the CB/CC/CD/CE/CP percent columns of the "Total number of cases closed" row. "Before issuance of complaint" row, CD cases / Number column: the cell holds a parenthesised raised 2, i.e. a footnote reference standing in place of a value (the matching percent cell is a dash rule). I have written it "(^2)". It is in the Number column, not the percent column. Arithmetic is consistent with it standing for zero: the three informal-settlement sub-rows for CD are (^2), 2 and 2 against a CD informal-settlement total of 4. "Consent decree" (first occurrence, under "After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing"), CA cases / Percent of total closed: the leading 0 is malformed in the scan and reads like "Q 4"; from context and column alignment it is 0.4. Two row labels repeat verbatim within the table ("After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing" appears under both Informal settlement and Formal settlement; "Stipulated decision" and "Consent decree" each appear twice). The printed indentation that distinguishes them is not carried into the stub cells, per the no-commentary rule; row order preserves the hierarchy. A stray ink mark (a short diagonal stroke) sits in the stub at the left of the "After hearing opened, before issuance of administrative law judge's decision" row; it is not a character and is not transcribed.

p. 224. Continuation page: no column headings are printed on this crop, so header_rows is empty. The grid has 16 columns (stub + 15): a count/percent pair for the total, a within-category percent, then count/percent pairs for six case-type columns. The first four rows continue a section begun on the previous page; "Adopting administrative law judge's decision (no exceptions filed)" and "Contested" are indented one level deeper than "Circuit court of appeals decree" and "Supreme Court action", i.e. they are sub-items of a parent line printed on the preceding page. Note that these two rows at the top read "Circuit court of appeals decree" / "Supreme Court action" without a leading "By", while the parallel rows in the Dismissal block read "By circuit court of appeals decree" / "By Supreme Court action"; both are transcribed as printed. Decimal points: in the percent columns the printed period is frequently broken or lost in this 1-bit scan, so the image often shows forms like "0 5", "36 6", "97 4", "49 0". These are one-decimal percentages and have been transcribed with the decimal point restored ("0.5", "36.6", "97.4", "49.0"). The same applies to the few counts where a period-like speck appears (e.g. ". 27" in "After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing" under Dismissal is the count 27). Rows "Before issuance of complaint" under Withdrawal and under Dismissal carry a parenthesized raised 2 in column 10 instead of a value; transcribed as "(2)". It is a reference to footnote 2, not a quantity. Cells shown as "" are either blank or a dash rule ("------") in the image; the two are not distinguished here. In the "Supreme Court action" row and several all-zero rows some of the trailing percent cells are blank rather than dashed, but all resolve to "". Doubtful glyphs, all resolved by the row arithmetic: in "After administrative law judge's decision, before Board decision" the count in column 8 is damaged and prints like a "C"; it is 0 (the row's components 8+0+0+0+0+0 = 8 match column 1). In "After hearing opened, before administrative law judge's decision" under Withdrawal, column 12 has a stray ink mark before the digit; the value is 0. Apparent printing discrepancies, transcribed as printed, not corrected: "By Board decision" under Dismissal shows 3.3 in column 3, but 288/8,906 = 3.23, which would round to 3.2. "Before issuance of complaint" under Withdrawal shows 97.2 in column 3, but 9,482/9,746 = 97.29, which would round to 97.3. Verification: for every data row the six case-type counts (columns 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14) sum exactly to the total in column 1, including the Withdrawal (9,746) and Dismissal (8,906) lines, and the implied column bases are consistent across all rows.