Injunction Litigation Under Section 10(e), 10(j), and 10(l), Fiscal Year 1982

p. 327. Twelve columns: stub (no stub heading is printed; the top-left cell is blank), Total proceedings, the two "Injunctions proceedings" columns (Pending Oct. 1, 1981 / Filed fiscal year 1982), Total dispositions, the six "Disposition of injunctions" columns (Granted, Denied, Settled, Withdrawn, Dismissed, Inactive), and Pending in district court Sept. 30, 1982. Periods: the scan renders abbreviation points and the dots of "i" very faintly throughout (e.g. "Pendıng ın dıstrıct"). I have transcribed "Sec.", "Oct." and "Sept." with the points that the spacing indicates are printed; if the source genuinely omits them, those three cells/labels would drop a period each. Row "8(a)(1)(2)", column Denied: the glyph is badly degraded and reads as a small smudge rather than a clean digit. I transcribed it as 0; the printed column total for Sec. 10(j) Denied (8) equals the sum of the other listed rows (2+3+2+1), which leaves exactly 0 for this cell, so 0 is almost certainly what is printed. Row "Under Sec. 10(e) Total", column Total proceedings: the footnote marker 1 is printed raised and to the LEFT of the value ("¹ 5"); recorded as 5^1. Row label "8(b)(7)(B)(D)": the subsection string is unusual (8(b)(7) has subparagraphs A–C), but the ")(" glyph pattern in this row matches every other row's, so it is transcribed as printed. The ")(" sequences throughout are low-contrast and can look like an "X" at this resolution; all were read as ")(" consistently with standard NLRB section notation. All printed row/column totals in both the Sec. 10(j) and Sec. 10(l) panels add up to the listed detail rows; no internal inconsistencies found.