NLRB Stats Archive › Annual Reports › FY1982 › Types of Unfair Labor Practices Alleged, Fiscal Year 1982
| Number of cases showing specific allegations | Percent of total cases | |
|---|---|---|
| A. Charges filed against employers under sec. 8(a) | ||
| Subsections of sec. 8(a) | ||
| Total cases | 27,749 | 100.0 |
| 8(a)(1) | 4,845 | 17.8 |
| 8(a)(1)(2) | 314 | 1.1 |
| 8(a)(1)(3) | 10,490 | 37.8 |
| 8(a)(1)(4) | 239 | 0.9 |
| 8(a)(1)(5) | 7,476 | 26.9 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(3) | 227 | 0.8 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(4) | 8 | 0.0 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(5) | 113 | 0.4 |
| 8(a)(1)(3)(4) | 699 | 2.5 |
| 8(a)(1)(3)(5) | 2,996 | 10.8 |
| 8(a)(1)(4)(5) | 12 | 0.0 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(3)(4) | 29 | 0.1 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(3)(5) | 141 | 0.5 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(4)(5) | 10 | 0.0 |
| 8(a)(1)(3)(4)(5) | 134 | 0.5 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) | 16 | 0.1 |
| Recapitulation | ||
| 8(a)(1) | 27,749 | 100.0 |
| 8(a)(2) | 858 | 3.1 |
| 8(a)(3) | 14,732 | 53.1 |
| 8(a)(4) | 1,147 | 4.1 |
| 8(a)(5) | 10,898 | 39.3 |
| B. Charges filed against unions under sec. 8(b) | ||
| Subsections of sec. 8(b) | ||
| Total cases | 10,230 | 100.0 |
| 8(b)(1) | 5,692 | 55.6 |
| 8(b)(2) | 129 | 1.3 |
| 8(b)(3) | 421 | 4.1 |
| 8(b)(4) | 1,911 | 18.7 |
| 8(b)(5) | 7 | 0.1 |
| 8(b)(6) | 15 | 0.2 |
| 8(b)(7) | 375 | 3.7 |
| 8(b)(1)(2) | 1,290 | 12.6 |
| 8(b)(1)(3) | 263 | 2.6 |
| 8(b)(1)(5) | 20 | 0.2 |
| 8(b)(1)(6) | 4 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(2)(3) | 15 | 0.2 |
| 8(b)(2)(5) | 2 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(3)(6) | 1 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(1)(2)(3) | 69 | 0.7 |
| 8(b)(1)(2)(5) | 3 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(1)(2)(6) | 4 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(1)(3)(5) | 4 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(1)(3)(6) | 3 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(1)(2)(3)(6) | 1 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(1)(2)(3)(5)(6) | 1 | 0.0 |
| Recapitulation | ||
| 8(b)(1) | 7,354 | 71.9 |
| 8(b)(2) | 1,514 | 14.8 |
| 8(b)(3) | 778 | 7.6 |
| 8(b)(4) | 1,911 | 18.7 |
| 8(b)(5) | 37 | 0.4 |
| 8(b)(6) | 29 | 0.3 |
| 8(b)(7) | 375 | 3.7 |
| B1. Analysis of 8(b)(4) | ||
| Total cases 8(b)(4) | 1,911 | 100.0 |
| 8(b)(4)(A) | 130 | 6.8 |
| 8(b)(4)(B) | 1,214 | 63.5 |
| 8(b)(4)(C) | 14 | 0.7 |
| 8(b)(4)(D) | 435 | 22.8 |
| 8(b)(4)(A)(B) | 105 | 5.5 |
| 8(b)(4)(A)(C) | 1 | 0.1 |
| 8(b)(4)(B)(C) | 10 | 0.5 |
| 8(b)(4)(A)(B)(C) | 2 | 0.1 |
| Recapitulation | ||
| 8(b)(4)(A) | 238 | 12.5 |
| 8(b)(4)(B) | 1,331 | 69.6 |
| 8(b)(4)(C) | 27 | 1.4 |
| 8(b)(4)(D) | 435 | 22.8 |
| B2. Analysis of 8(b)(7) | ||
| Total cases 8(b)(7) | 375 | 100.0 |
| 8(b)(7)(A) | 119 | 31.7 |
| 8(b)(7)(B) | 10 | 2.7 |
| 8(b)(7)(C) | 234 | 62.4 |
| 8(b)(7)(A)(B) | 4 | 1.1 |
| 8(b)(7)(A)(C) | 7 | 1.9 |
| 8(b)(7)(B)(C) | 1 | 0.3 |
| Recapitulation | ||
| 8(b)(7)(A) | 130 | 34.7 |
| 8(b)(7)(B) | 15 | 4.0 |
| 8(b)(7)(C) | 242 | 64.5 |
| C. Charges filed under sec. 8(e) | ||
| Total cases 8(e) | 70 | 100.0 |
| Against unions alone | 70 | 100.0 |
| D. Charges filed under sec. 8(g) | ||
| Total cases 8(g) | 48 | 100.0 |
0 of 77 figures sit in a row or column sum that works out.
p. 276. Layout: the table is printed as two side-by-side panels sharing one pair of column headings. I transcribed it in a single panel's three columns, left panel first (section A through the end of the 8(b) subsection list) and then the right panel (the 8(b) Recapitulation through section D). The column headings are given once. Scan quality / periods: this is a degraded 1-bit scan in which most periods and the dots of the letter "i" are lost (e.g. the body prints as "Recapitulatıon", "allegatıons", "sec 8(a)", and footnote 1 reads "the Act Therefore"). Accordingly, no decimal point is visible in the percent column (cells image as "100 0", "17 8", etc.) and no period is visible after the section letters or after "sec". I have restored these periods, since the column is uniformly one-decimal percentages and the original typesetting clearly carries them; if a strictly literal rendering of the raster is wanted, every percent cell would be written with a space in place of the decimal point and the section labels without their periods. Doubtful cells: - Row "8(a)(1)", percent column: I read the printed value as 17.8, but 4,845 of 27,749 total cases is 17.5 percent, and every other percent in the 8(a) block reconciles exactly to the printed counts. Either the source misprints this figure or the degraded "5" has been misread as "8". Transcribed as read (17.8). - Row "8(b)(7)(C)", percent column: the raster shows what could be a third digit, imaging roughly as "62 43". 234 of 375 is exactly 62.4, and every other percent cell in the table carries a single decimal, so I transcribed 62.4 and treat the trailing mark as a scan artifact. - Stray ink specks sit in the stub margin beside "8(a)(1)(4)", "8(b)(1)(2)(6)" and "8(b)(1)(3)(5)", and in the right panel beside "8(b)(4)(B)" in the recapitulation; these are not footnote markers and are not transcribed. Arithmetic check (not applied to any cell, reported only for confidence): all 8(a) subsection counts sum to the printed 27,749 total, and every printed recapitulation total for 8(a)(2)-(5), 8(b)(1)-(7), 8(b)(4)(A)-(D) and 8(b)(7)(A)-(C) reproduces exactly from the detail counts as transcribed, as do the B1 and B2 panel totals. The counts column is therefore internally consistent throughout.
Source data: U.S. NLRB Annual Reports (public domain). Reconstruction by NLRB Stats Archive. Read by claude-opus-5 (effort max, prompt extract_v1) from the 300-dpi scan; stitched by page. Updated October 2026.