Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1985

p. 175. 18 columns: stub + "All C cases" (Number, Percent of total closed, Percent of total method) + seven case-type panels of two columns each (CA, CB, CC, CD, CE, CG, CP). CROP: the image is cut off at the bottom. The last transcribed row, "Circuit court of appeals decree", is the final row visible (its baseline touches the crop edge but all its figures are legible). The table continues below: the "Compliance with" subtotal of 1,037 exceeds the sum of the three compliance detail rows shown here (17 + 638 + 377 = 1,032; likewise CA 13 + 495 + 316 = 824 vs. 829), so at least one more detail row and probably further sections lie beyond the crop. No footnote texts are visible, hence the empty footnotes list, even though the caption carries a raised 1 and the body carries a raised 2 (see below). DECIMAL POINTS: every percent cell is printed with one decimal place, but the periods are largely lost in this 1-bit scan, which renders them as "100 0", "28 5", etc. I have written them with the decimal point ("100.0", "28.5"). No digits were altered. DOUBTFUL CELL — "Before issuance of complaint", CD cases: the Number column holds a small raised "2" rather than a baseline digit, and the adjacent "Percent of total closed" cell holds a long dash rule. I read the raised 2 as a footnote marker, not a value, and have written it as "^2" with the percent cell empty. Column arithmetic supports that reading: Informal settlement CD = 2 = 0 (this row) + 2 ("After issuance of complaint...") + 0 ("After hearing opened..."), so the suppressed count here is 0, not 2. The footnote itself is below the crop. SUSPECTED MISPRINT — "Formal settlement", CG cases Number: printed as "44" (two digits), but its own percent of 10.5 and the component rows below it (After issuance of complaint = 4, of which Stipulated 0 + Consent decree 4) and the parent "Agreement of the parties" CG = 15 = 11 informal + 4 formal all imply 4. Transcribed as printed. A few printed percents differ by 0.1 from a recomputation against the stated totals (e.g. CA "Agreement of the parties" 31.6 vs. 7,519/23,726 = 31.7; CA "Informal settlement" 31.0 vs. 31.1). All are transcribed as printed. A small stray hyphen-like mark sits in the blank space to the right of the "Informal settlement" label; treated as a scan artifact and not transcribed. The caption, its raised 1, and the running head are excluded as instructed.

p. 176. 18 columns: stub + All C cases (Number, Percent of total closed, Percent of total method) + Number/Percent-of-total-closed pairs for CA, CB, CC, CD, CE, CG, CP. Decimal points: the scan resolves the percent values as e.g. "30 2", "100 0", "0 0" because the printed period is too small to survive this 300-ppi 1-bit render. The same loss shows in the footnotes ("by stage See Glossary", "Sec 10(k)"), so the periods are present in the original print and I have restored them: every percent cell is written with one decimal place (30.2, 100.0, 0.0, etc.). If a downstream check wants strict pixel fidelity, these are the cells to revisit. Footnote-marker-only cells: in the CD cases "Number" column, both "Before issuance of complaint" rows (under Withdrawal and under Dismissal) print a raised "2" and no numeral. I transcribed those two cells as "^2"; the adjacent CD percent cells read 0.0 in both rows. This is consistent with footnote 2, which says CD cases closed at that stage are handled as 10(k) jurisdictional disputes instead. The crop is a continuation page ("—Continued" in the caption, omitted as instructed) but it does carry its own full column headings, so header_rows is populated. The table ends with the "Otherwise ..." row followed by the bottom rule and footnotes; no grand-total row appears on this page, and no rows are cut off. Indentation is not preserved in the grid: "Before issuance of complaint" through "After Board or court decision" are sub-rows of "Withdrawal"; "Before issuance of complaint" through "By Supreme Court action" are sub-rows of "Dismissal"; "Adopting administrative law judge's decision (no exceptions filed)" and "Contested" are sub-rows of "By Board decision". Two labels ("Before issuance of complaint", "After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing", "After hearing opened, before administrative law judge's decision") therefore appear twice, once under each parent. Arithmetic as printed, not corrected: under Dismissal the All-C "Percent of total method" column sums to 93.9 + 0.8 + 0.1 + 0.0 + 4.9 + 0.1 + 0.1 = 99.9 rather than 100.0, and the "10(k) actions" row shows 0.8 percent of total closed against a 0.0 percent-of-total-method entry. Both are transcribed exactly as printed.