Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1981

p. 202. CROP: the table is cut off at the bottom — the last printed line on this image is the "Board decision" row, and the "Compliance with" block (and any further method rows, totals and the footnote block) continue on the following page. No footnote texts appear on this crop, so `footnotes` is empty even though the caption carries a raised 1 and one cell carries a "(2)" reference. DECIMAL POINTS: this is a coarse bitonal scan in which most decimal points in the percent columns have dropped out, so values print as e.g. "26 1", "100 0", "43 7". A few survive ("100.0", "1.0", "0.0"). I have written all of these with the decimal point, as "26.1", "100.0", "43.7"; every one was confirmed by recomputing the percentage from the printed counts (all 16 rows' panel counts also sum exactly to the "All C cases" figure, and the percent-of-total-method column reproduces each count divided by its method total), so the column placement and digits are well corroborated. DOUBTFUL CELLS: - "Total number of cases closed" / All C cases, Percent of total method: printed as "0.0". That is anomalous — this column is a within-method share and is logically blank on the grand-total line. It is legibly right-aligned in that column on the image, so I transcribed it as printed rather than blanking it, but it may be a misprint or stray ink over an intended blank. - "Before issuance of complaint" / CD cases, Number: printed "(2)" — a reference to footnote 2 standing in place of a value, not a count. The row's other panels sum to 6,376 only if CD is treated as 0, consistent with CD informal settlement (14) being entirely in the "After issuance of complaint" line. - "Administrative law judge's decision" / CA cases, Percent of total closed: printed "0.0" although 20/29,351 rounds to 0.1. Likewise "Stipulated decision" (first one) / CA "0.0" (16/29,351 → 0.1), "Stipulated decision" / CB "0.0" (5/8,640 → 0.1), and "Consent decree" (second one) / CB "0.0" (7/8,640 → 0.1), and "Consent decree" (second one) / All C "Percent of total method" "1.0" (116/10,720 → 1.1). All transcribed as printed, uncorrected. - "Administrative law judge's decision" / CC cases, Percent of total closed: the two bottom rows are set very tight and the Board row's "1.3" sits directly beneath this cell; I read the ALJ cell as empty (its count is 0, and every other zero count in this table carries a blank or leader-dot percent). Flagged as the one placement I am least sure of. - "Board decision" / CD cases, Percent of total closed: prints with a stray leading dot, as ". 02"; read as "0.2" (1/427 = 0.2). BLANKS: many percent cells opposite a zero count hold only leader dots or an ellipsis ("...", ". ."); all of those are transcribed as "". Row labels' trailing leader dots are dropped, including the dot run after "After hearing opened" (printed "After hearing opened." followed by leaders).

p. 203. CONTINUATION PAGE: the crop shows no column headings at all, so header_rows is empty. The table begins on the preceding page; the first four body rows here ("Adopting administrative law judge's decision (no exceptions filed)", "Contested", "Circuit court of appeals decree", "Supreme Court action") are the tail of a section whose heading and earlier rows are cut off above the crop. COLUMN STRUCTURE (18 columns, confirmed by the column rules and by arithmetic): cell 0 = stub; cells 1-3 = the "all cases" group (number, percent of all cases closed, percent within the method); cells 4-17 = seven case-type number/percent pairs. Cross-checks confirm the assignment: the seven case-type numbers sum exactly to the "all cases" number in every row (e.g. Withdrawal 10,090+3,087+682+3+43+12+172 = 14,089; Dismissal 9,915+4,143+343+4+28+6+138 = 14,577), and cell 3 sums to 100.0 within each method block (95.7+3.0+0.6+0.0+0.7 = 100.0 under Withdrawal). DECIMAL POINTS: this is a 1-bit scan that has dropped most of the periods in the one-decimal percent columns, so many cells image as e.g. "34 3", "100 0", "0 2" while others in the same column retain a visible point ("8.2", "60.6", "0.3", "1.0", "0.5", "0.0", "0.1"). Every value in cells 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17 is a one-decimal percentage, so I have written the decimal point in all of them (e.g. "34.3", "100.0", "0.2"). No digits were otherwise altered. DOUBTFUL CELL: row "Supreme Court action", cell 10 (the 4th case-type number column, the one carrying footnote 2 / CD cases). The glyph reads as "3", and I have transcribed it as printed, but two structural checks point to "0": (a) the row then sums to 54 against the printed total of 51, whereas 48+1+2+0+0+0+0 = 51 exactly, and every other row on the page sums correctly; (b) the adjacent percent cell is blank, and throughout this table a blank percent accompanies only a zero count (3 cases would print 0.7, as in the "Circuit court of appeals decree" row directly above). Treat this cell as 0-or-3 and verify against a better scan. FOOTNOTE-MARKER CELLS: the two "Before issuance of complaint" rows carry a parenthesised "(2)" in cell 10 in place of a number, keying footnote 2; transcribed literally as "(2)". EMPTY CELLS: many cells hold only one or more leader dots (".", "..", "......") rather than a value; per the rules these are transcribed as "". Stray hyphen-like specks appear beside "1" in cell 16 of the "Circuit court of appeals decree" row and beside "0.2" in cell 17 of the second "After hearing opened..." row; both read as scan noise and are omitted. Terminal periods at the ends of the two footnotes are not visible in the scan and are not written.