Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1982

p. 291. 18 columns: stub + "All C cases" (Number, Percent of total closed, Percent of total method) + seven two-column panels (CA, CB, CC, CD, CE, CG, CP), each Number / Percent of total closed. The scan is bitonal and has dropped most small dots: the dots over "i" are missing throughout the row labels ("dısposıtıon", "ıssuance"), and likewise the decimal points inside the percent cells, which appear as "100 0", "29 6" etc. These are one-decimal percentages in the printed original, so they are transcribed with the decimal point ("100.0", "29.6"); no value was otherwise altered. Doubtful cells: - "Total number of cases closed", All C cases / Percent of total method: reads as a short right-aligned "0 0". Transcribed "0.0", but this cell is normally blank in this table and the mark may be a scan artifact or a rule fragment. - "Before issuance of complaint", CD cases / Number: holds a parenthesized raised reference "(2)" instead of a figure; it is centered under the Number sub-column, not the Percent sub-column. The CD components (0 + 9 + 1 = 10 for Informal settlement) imply it stands in for zero, and the CD percent cell beside it is blank. Crop: the table is cut off immediately below "Board decision" — the remainder of the "Compliance with" section and all footnote texts (including markers 1 on the caption and 2 in the CD cell) fall outside this image, so `footnotes` is empty. Rounding: the printed percentages appear to be sums of the rounded component percentages rather than recomputed values, so some disagree with a direct calculation by 0.1 (e.g. "Agreement of the parties" CA is printed 29.6 while 7,889/26,581 = 29.7; "Agreement of the parties" CB is printed 14.9 while 1,122/7,481 = 15.0). These are transcribed as printed. All column sums and sub-row sums otherwise reconcile.

p. 292. CROP / STRUCTURE. This is a continuation page: no column headings are printed on the image, so header_rows is empty. The grid has 18 columns (stub + 17 data columns), counted from the vertical rules and confirmed by the fully populated "Withdrawal" row. The layout is a 3-column total block (number, percent, percent) followed by seven number/percent pairs, one per case type. Footnote 2 appears in data column 10, and that same column carries the 381 "10(k) actions" figure, which identifies column 10/11 as the CD (jurisdictional-dispute) pair; the remaining pairs are therefore columns 4/5, 6/7, 8/9, 12/13, 14/15, 16/17 in the page's printed order. The crop is cut at the top: the first four rows ("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 on the preceding page. DROPPED DOTS IN THE SCAN. This is a 1-bit scan in which period-sized marks are systematically lost: the body text shows dotless i and j throughout ("Dismissal", "Circuit", "issuance", "administrative", "judge's", "jurisdictional" all render without their dots), and sentence periods are missing from both footnotes ("by stage See Glossary", "Sec 10(k)"). The decimal points in the percent columns are lost the same way, so cells printed on the image as "34 8", "100 0", "96 7" are transcribed as 34.8, 100.0, 96.7, and the footnote periods are restored on the same reasoning. No digits were added or changed. FOOTNOTE-MARKER CELLS. In data column 10 (CD), the rows "Before issuance of complaint" under Withdrawal and under Dismissal carry a parenthesised raised 2 in place of a value; transcribed as (2). The paired percent cell (column 11) is blank in both. BLANK PERCENT CELLS. Throughout the table a percent cell is left blank wherever its paired count is 0; those cells are "" and the 0 counts are kept. The few exceptions where a 0 count does carry a printed 0.0 percent (e.g. "Supreme court action" columns 2-3, "After hearing opened..." column 7) are transcribed as printed. ARITHMETIC CHECKS (all pass, supporting the column assignment). Withdrawal 9,408+2,585+496+2+24+19+137 = 12,671; its stage rows 12,075+571+14+7+4 = 12,671. Dismissal 8,403+3,605+265+0+24+14+108 = 12,419; its stage rows 12,037+132+4+3+240+2+1 = 12,419. Within "By Board Decision", 114+126 = 240 and the Adopting/Contested splits reconcile column by column. The four top rows also cross-foot: 148+93+42+1+3+0+4 = 291; 272+41+17+0+0+2+5 = 337; 260+19+6 = 285; 8+1 = 9. The implied column totals are consistent across the Withdrawal and Dismissal percent columns. DOUBTFUL CELLS. (a) "10(k) actions" and "Otherwise", column 3: both read 0.0, where the other top-level method rows (Withdrawal, Dismissal) read 100.0 in that column. The marks are clearly at the column-3 position and are transcribed as printed, but a reader should treat these two cells as a possible printing oddity rather than a transcription error. (b) Stray period-sized specks sit just right of the 0 in column 12 of the top "Contested" row and column 4 of the "10(k) actions" row; both are read as scan noise, with the adjacent percent cells left blank per the table's own convention. (c) Row 1, column 15 (CG percent) is blank beside a 0 count, consistent with that convention. (d) The em dash in the last row label ("achieved—firm went out of business") is printed as an em dash, not a line-break hyphen; the hyphens in "ad-ministrative", "adminis-trative", "deci-sion" and "mi-nistrative" are end-of-line breaks and have been repaired.