Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1984

p. 205. 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. Crop/continuation: the table continues past the bottom of the crop — "Circuit court of appeals decree" is the last fully printed row and sits on the bottom edge. The All C "Compliance with" total of 1,071 exceeds 48 + 666 + 342 = 1,056, so at least one further compliance line (and the footnotes, including the one marked on the caption) falls on the following page. No footnote text appears on this image, so `footnotes` is empty. Decimal points: in this scan the decimal point in every percentage is lost or reduced to a gap ("100 0", "29 4"). The values are plainly one-decimal percentages, so they are transcribed with the point restored ("100.0", "29.4"); no digits were altered. Doubtful cell — "Before issuance of complaint", CD cases: the Number cell holds only a small raised "2" with no digit beside it, and the adjoining CD "Percent of total closed" cell holds a long dash rule (transcribed ""). I read the raised 2 as a footnote marker and wrote it as "^2"; it could conceivably be a degraded printed digit. Column arithmetic implies the intended count is 0 (CD informal settlement 4 = 0 + 4 + 0), which is inconsistent with a printed value of 2 and also with a dash in the percent column where every other zero in that column prints "0.0". Nothing was substituted. Suspected misreads/misprints in the CG percent column: I read 51.7, 45.7 and 42.7 for the Agreement/Informal/Before-issuance rows, but 17/33, 15/33 and 14/33 are 51.5, 45.5 and 42.4. Given the CG counts cross-check perfectly, the final digit in these three cells may be a 5, 5 and 4 degraded into something I read as 7; they are transcribed as seen. Likewise CG 2 → "6.0" (twice) and 3 → "9.0" where the quotients are 6.1 and 9.1. Other percentages that differ by 0.1 from the quotient of the printed counts and are transcribed as printed: All C "Informal settlement" 28.3 (28.36), All C "Agreement of the parties" 29.4 (29.34), All C "After hearing opened..." percent-of-total-method 0.6 (0.53), CB "Agreement of the parties" 17.8 (17.68), CA "Before issuance of complaint" 20.1 (20.05), CA "Formal settlement" 0.8 (0.89), CA "After hearing opened" 0.3 (0.39), CA "Compliance with" 3.4 (3.28). A stray short dash sits just left of the "4" in the CP Number cell of the second "After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing" row (the formal-settlement one); I treated it as a speck and transcribed "4", which is consistent with CP formal settlement 4 = 0 stipulated + 4 consent decree. All Number columns were cross-checked against their own subtotals (components to informal/formal settlement, to Agreement of the parties, and stipulated + consent decree to each settlement stage, and adopting + contested to Board decision) and every one balances in all eight case-type panels.

p. 206. 18 columns: stub + All C cases (Number, Percent of total closed, Percent of total method) + seven two-column groups (CA, CB, CC, CD, CE, CG, CP), each Number and Percent of total closed. Decimal points: this scan drops most periods, so percent cells render as "31 0", "98 1", "100 0". They are one-decimal percentages and I have transcribed them with the decimal point ("31.0", "98.1", "100.0"); the same restoration was applied to sentence periods and "Sec." in the two footnotes. CD cases, rows "Before issuance of complaint" (under Withdrawal and under Dismissal): the Number cell holds only a raised footnote 2, and the Percent of total closed cell holds a long dash rule. I put "^2" in the CD Number column (where the marker is printed) and "" for the dash rule. CP cases, Number column, last two rows ("10(k) actions..." and "Otherwise (compliance with order...)"): no digit is visible in the Number column on this scan — only the percent "0.0" is printed to its right — so both Number cells are "". Every other row in those columns carries a value, so a faint or dropped "0" is possible; these are the two least certain cells. A small stray tick sits above "Number" in the CP cases heading; I read it as a speck, not a footnote marker. This is a continuation page (caption ends "—Continued"); the body therefore begins mid-table with "Supreme court action". Nothing was computed or corrected.