Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Jurisdictional Dispute Cases Closed Prior to Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings, Fiscal Year 1983

p. 199. Three columns; no footnotes printed under the table. Decimal points: the scan has dropped nearly every small round dot on the page — the letter "i" appears dotless throughout ("dispositıon", "Complıance", "Dısmıssal"), and the decimal points in the percent column render as blank space ("100 0", "39 4"). I have written these as decimal points (100.0, 39.4, …) since each value has exactly one digit after the gap and the figure is a percentage. If a strictly literal rendering is wanted, replace each "." with a space. Internal checks all agree with the transcribed figures: 104+35+1 = 140; 118+9+11+0 = 138; 64+5+2+2 = 73; 140+4+138+73 = 355; and 39.4+1.1+38.9+20.6 = 100.0. The subcategory percentages differ from their group totals only by rounding (29.3+9.9+0.3 = 39.5 vs. 39.4; 33.2+2.5+3.1+0.0 = 38.8 vs. 38.9). Wording kept as printed: under "Withdrawal" the second subrow prints "10(K)" with a capital K, unlike the lowercase "10(k)" used in the parallel rows of the other sections; and the "Compliance with board decision…" row prints "board" in lowercase, whereas the other rows print "Board". The rows beginning "After opening of 10(k) hearing, before issuance of Board decision and determination of dispute" each wrap onto two printed lines and are joined into one row here; their values sit on the second printed line. Faint leader dots appear just left of the "Number of cases" column on several rows and are dropped. Horizontal rules separate the four method groups; they carry no text.