Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Jurisdictional Dispute Cases Closed Prior to Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings, Fiscal Year 1982

p. 293. Three columns: stub, "Number of cases", "Percent of total closed"; a single heading level, with the stub heading spanning the heading band. No footnotes are printed under the table. Decimal points: in this 1-bit scan the period in the percent column reproduces only as a faint gap (the image reads "100 0", "32 5", "27 6", etc.). The column is uniformly one decimal place, so I have written the decimal point in every percent cell ("100.0", "32.5", ...). No other character is in doubt there. Row grouping (no values are missing): the four lines "Agreement of the parties—informal settlement", "Compliance with Board Decision and determination of dispute", "Withdrawal" and "Dismissal" are flush-left category rows that carry their own totals; the indented lines beneath each are its stages. The three long stage labels wrap onto two printed lines ("determina- tion of dispute") and have been joined; in each case the figures are printed on the second line, aligned with "tion of dispute". Arithmetic (transcribed as printed, not corrected): the four category counts sum to 381, matching the total, and each category's stages sum to its category count. The four category percents sum to 99.9 rather than 100.0, which is ordinary rounding. The em dash in "Agreement of the parties—informal settlement" is part of the label, not a dash rule. "Board Decision" in the Compliance row is capitalised as printed, unlike "Board decision" elsewhere.