Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Jurisdictional Dispute Cases Closed Prior to Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings, Fiscal Year 1985

p. 177. Three columns. Decimal points in the \"Percent of total closed\" column did not survive this 1-bit scan: every value is printed with a visible gap instead of a period (e.g. the first cell images as \"100 0\", then \"38 0\", \"24 0\", \"13 7\", \"0 4\", ...). These are one-decimal percentages, so I have written the periods back in, exactly as the comma-gap rule treats \"8, 044\"; no digits were altered. The \"Number of cases\" column shows no such gaps. Values are transcribed as printed and not reconciled: the three \"Agreement of the parties\" subitems sum to 38.1 against the printed 38.0, and the four \"Dismissal\" subitems sum to 20.2 against the printed 20.3. In the last row (\"By Board decision and determination of dispute\") a small stray tick sits in the percent cell just left of \"1.8\"; it is a scan artifact / stray mark rather than a footnote marker or digit, so it is not transcribed. Indentation is not carried in the grid: the three \"Before 10(k) notice\" / \"After ...\" blocks are indented subitems under \"Agreement of the parties—informal settlement\", \"Withdrawal\" and \"Dismissal\" respectively, and the same label wording recurs in each block. The footnote line is clipped by the bottom edge of the crop — the marker and the words \"See Glossary of terms for definitions\" are legible but the final period is cut, and I cannot rule out a further footnote line below the crop. The footnote marker 1 appears on the caption (\"Fiscal Year 1985^1\"), which is excluded per instructions.