Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1980

p. 269. The crop cuts the table off below the "Board decision" row: the body continues on the page (e.g. compliance with court decrees, withdrawals, dismissals) and no footnote block is visible, so `footnotes` is empty even though at least one marker is referenced in the body. Decimal points: this scan drops small dots (the dots on every "i" are gone from the row labels too), so the percent cells render as e.g. "100 0" / "27 5". They are printed with a decimal point in the original and are transcribed as 100.0, 27.5, etc. All of the restored percentages were checked against the printed counts and bases and agree to a tenth, which supports the reading. Doubtful cells: - "Total number of cases closed", All C cases / "Percent of total method": reads as 0.0, which is anomalous for a total row (the other method-group totals carry 100.0). Transcribed as printed; the glyphs are clear but the value may be a misprint in the source. - "Before issuance of complaint", CD cases / "Number": the cell holds a parenthesised raised footnote reference rather than a figure; transcribed as "(2)". The raised digit is small and could conceivably be a 3. Its "Percent of total closed" cell is blank. Arithmetic implies the suppressed count is 0 (the other CD-case columns sum to the All C total of 7,424). Internal arithmetic: all eight "Number" columns cross-foot correctly for every row (e.g. 29,411 + 8,916 + 2,445 + 477 + 168 + 70 + 560 = 42,047). Several printed percentages are adjusted so that components add to their printed subtotal rather than following strict rounding (e.g. All C "Formal settlement" 0.5 where 174/42,047 = 0.41); these are transcribed exactly as printed. Repeated labels: "After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing", "Stipulated decision" and "Consent decree" each appear twice; in the original they are distinguished only by indentation (under "Informal settlement" vs "Formal settlement", and under the two formal-settlement stages). Leader dots after "Agreement of the parties" and "Compliance with" have been dropped. Where only a count of 0 is printed, the matching percent cell is blank in the original and is left empty here.

p. 270. Continuation page (no column headings are printed on this crop), so header_rows is empty. The grid is 18 columns: the stub plus 17 number columns, read off the vertical rules and confirmed arithmetically — 3 "total" columns (count, percent of all cases, percent within the disposition group) followed by seven number/percent pairs, one pair per case type. Every row's columns 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 sum exactly to column 1 (e.g. 8,948+2,908+800+62+15+234 = 12,967), and the Withdrawal and Dismissal sub-rows sum to their block totals, so the column assignment is verified throughout. Decimal points: this 1-bit scan drops most of the small periods in the percent columns, which print as e.g. "31 9", "0 2", "97 6" while a few survive ("6.9", "100.0", "96.6", "3.2", "36.9", "2.4"). I have written these with the decimal point they are set with in the original; implied bases are consistent across every row (e.g. 65/0.387 and 69/0.411 both give ~168 for the sixth case type), so the placement is not in doubt. Periods were likewise restored at the sentence breaks in both footnotes, where the scan drops them. The cell in the tenth column of the two "Before issuance of complaint" rows holds only a parenthesised raised 2 (a pointer to footnote 2, not a value); I have written it as "(^2)". The first row's label is clipped by the top edge of the crop — only the lower halves of the letters in its first line ("Adopting administrative law") are visible. I read it from the identical label that recurs later in the table under "By Board decision"; its values are fully legible and verified by cross-footing (63+23+3+1+1 = 91). Cells holding only leader dots were transcribed as empty: the eleventh column of "Withdrawal — Before issuance of complaint" (single dot), of "Dismissal" (single dot), and of "After Board or court decision" (two dots). Possible misprint, transcribed as printed: the third column carries 100.0 on the "Withdrawal" and "Dismissal" lines but 0.0 on the two parallel method lines "10(k) actions" and "Otherwise"; I have not altered either. The crop cuts the table mid-section at the top — the rows above (the section these first four rows belong to) are on the preceding page.