Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1979

p. 295. 18 columns: stub + "All C cases" (Number, Percent of total closed, Percent of total method) + seven two-column groups (CA, CB, CC, CD, CE, CG, CP), each Number and Percent of total closed. Decimal points: in this scan the period in the percent figures is not resolved and the cells read as "100 0", "27 3", "0 8", etc. These are decimal percentages and are transcribed with the point restored ("100.0", "27.3", "0.8"). The restoration is confirmed arithmetically throughout: e.g. 11,359/41,544 = 27.3, 7,183/11,359 = 63.2, 5/576 = 0.9. "Total number of cases closed", All C cases / Percent of total method: the cell reads as two digit groups right-aligned, i.e. "0.0" under the convention above. This is almost certainly a misprint or a stray setting — that column otherwise carries 100.0 only on the method-heading rows (Agreement of the parties, Compliance with) and is blank on the total line in companion tables. Transcribed as printed; not corrected. "Before issuance of complaint", CD cases / Number: the cell holds a parenthesized raised 2 and no numeral, i.e. a footnote reference standing in for the value; written "(^2)". Its percent cell is a dash rule. The CD informal-settlement components (this cell + 4 + 0) sum to the printed 4, so the suppressed value is 0. The crop ends immediately below the "Board decision" row; its numbers are fully legible but the rule beneath it, any further body rows, and the footnote block (including notes 1 and 2, called out in the caption and in the CD cell) are cut off and are not on this image, hence the empty footnote list. Row labels are given as printed, including the bare heading "Compliance with", whose sub-rows complete the phrase. Two pairs of rows repeat the labels "Stipulated decision" and "Consent decree" (once under "After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing" and once under "After hearing opened"); both pairs are kept in printed order. All dash-rule cells ("-------") are rendered as "". Cross-checks performed: every component group sums to its printed subtotal (e.g. 7,183 + 3,742 + 204 = 11,129; 11,129 + 230 = 11,359; 716 + 103 + 25 + 6 + 8 + 5 + 9 = 872) and every percent re-derives from its column's total closed, so the column assignment of each number is verified.

p. 296. COLUMN STRUCTURE: 18 columns = stub + 17 value columns. The crop carries no column headings (the table and its heading block continue from the preceding page), so header_rows is empty. The 17 value columns are a 3-column total block (count, percent, percent) followed by seven 2-column count/percent blocks, one per unfair-labor-practice case type; the case-type labels are printed on the previous page and are not reconstructed here. DECIMAL POINTS: every percent column is printed with a decimal point that this 1-bit scan renders as a bare gap ("100 0", "31 1", "38 7"). They are transcribed as decimals (100.0, 31.1, 38.7); the values are percentages and are only coherent that way. The same applies to the periods after "stage", "sec" and "Act" in the footnotes, which are faint but present. DOUBTFUL CELLS (both flagged, transcribed as they appear rather than adjusted): - Row 3 "Circuit court of appeals decree", 7th value column (percent beside the count 75): the glyph pair reads as "7 8" and is given as 7.8, but 75 against that case type's base (~9,520 cases, implied by 3,142 = 33.0% and 4,576 = 48.1%) works out to 0.8, and every other percent in this table reproduces exactly. The leading character may be a broken 0. Worth re-checking at full resolution. - Row 7 "After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing" (withdrawal section), 8th value column (4th case-type count): reads as "91" and is given as 91, but two independent checks say 19 — the row's seven case-type counts then sum to the printed row total 382 (308+44+19+0+6+1+4), and 19 against that case type's base gives the printed 0.9 percent, whereas 91 gives 4.5. Digit order is uncertain; re-check at full resolution. Every other count in the table was verified two ways: the seven case-type counts sum exactly to the printed total, and each printed percent reproduces from the counts. OTHER OBSERVATIONS: - Cells holding a parenthesised raised 2 (the CD column of "Withdrawal" and of the dismissal section's "Before issuance of complaint") are written "(^2)". - The CD treatment is internally inconsistent as printed: the "Withdrawal" total row carries "(^2)" while its own "Before issuance of complaint" subrow carries 0, whereas in the dismissal section the total carries 6 and the "Before issuance of complaint" subrow carries "(^2)". Transcribed as printed. - Row 16 "By Board decision", 12th value column: the 4 is followed by a stray tick ("4'"), almost certainly scan dirt rather than a footnote marker; read as 4 and confirmed by the row total (298+63+8+3+4+0+4=380). A similar stray mark floats above the CD column between rows 16 and 17 and is ignored. - "10(k) actions" and "Otherwise (compliance ...)" both carry 0.0 in the 3rd column, where the other section totals carry 100.0. Transcribed as printed. - Blank cells here are printed as dash rules ("-------") or leader dots and are given as "". - Nothing appears cut off at the left, right or bottom; the top of the crop begins mid-section, with the section's earlier rows and the headings on the preceding page.