Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1986

p. 243. 18 columns: stub + 3 for "All C cases" (Number, Percent of total closed, Percent of total method) + 2 each (Number, Percent of total closed) for CA, CB, CC, CD, CE, CG, CP. Punctuation lost in the scan: decimal points in the percent columns did not reproduce (cells print as e.g. "100 0", "29 1"); they are transcribed as one-decimal percentages ("100.0", "29.1"). Likewise the thousands comma in the CA cell of "Informal settlement" prints as "7 375" and is transcribed "7,375". No value digits were altered. "Total number of cases closed", "Percent of total method" column: the cell holds a dash rule ("——"), transcribed as "". Doubtful cell — "Before issuance of complaint", CD cases: the Number cell holds only a small raised "2" (a footnote marker, set at the right-aligned number position) and the adjacent "Percent of total closed" cell holds a dash rule. The column's own arithmetic implies a count of 0 (CD informal settlement 4 = 0 + 3 + 1), so the marker appears to stand in place of a zero/not-applicable entry. Transcribed as "^2" with "" for the percent; the explanatory footnote is below the crop and could not be checked. Row label "After hearing opened, before issuance of administrative law judge's decision": the comma after "opened" and the apostrophe in "judge's" are not legible in this scan (printed as "After hearing opened before issuance of administra-tive law judge s decision"); the standard wording is given. Printed percentages are not all rounded the same way (some cells truncate, some round): e.g. CA "Agreement of the parties" 7,552/23,180 = 32.58 is printed 32.5, and CA "Compliance with" 694/23,180 = 2.99 is printed 2.9, while the All C column rounds (252/33,450 = 0.75 printed 0.8). All are transcribed as printed, not recomputed. Individual digits in the percent columns (notably 5 vs 6, 8 vs 3) are the least certain characters at this scan resolution. The crop is cut off immediately below "Circuit court of appeals decree", whose line is only partially visible but legible; further body rows and all footnotes (including footnote 1 referenced by the caption) are not on this image. Consistency check: all Number columns sum correctly within the sections shown (e.g. 6,634 + 2,778 + 71 = 9,483; 9,483 + 252 = 9,735), and the "Compliance with" subtotals fall short of 912 only because more sub-rows lie below the crop.

p. 244. The crop is a "—Continued" page: the body begins mid-table with "Supreme Court action" (the tail of a preceding section whose heading is on the previous page), so no section header precedes it here. Decimal points: in this 1-bit scan the decimal point in every percentage reproduces as a faint gap (e.g. "31 1", "100 0"). They are unambiguously decimal points given the value ranges, and I have written them as such ("31.1", "100.0"). Likewise the digit-grouping comma in the All C cases "Before issuance of complaint" (Withdrawal) value prints as a gap, "10 174"; written as "10,174". Footnote-marker-only cells: in both "Before issuance of complaint" rows (under Withdrawal and under Dismissal), the CD cases "Number" cell contains only a small raised 2 with no numeral, and the adjacent CD "Percent of total closed" cell holds a dash rule. I transcribed the Number cell as "^2" and the Percent cell as "" per the dash-rule convention. Footnote 2 explains that CD cases closed at this stage are handled as 10(k) jurisdictional disputes. The caption carries footnote marker 1 ("...Fiscal Year 1986^1"); that marker is on the omitted caption line, not on any transcribed cell. Row-label punctuation: commas inside labels such as "After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing" and "After administrative law judge's decision, before Board decision" are faint or dropped in the scan in some occurrences; I rendered them consistently with the occurrences where they are legible. Similarly, apostrophes in "judge's" are faint in a few lines. Arithmetic as printed, not corrected: under Withdrawal, the "Percent of total method" column sums to 97.7 + 2.1 + 0.2 + 0.0 + 0.0 = 100.0 against the stated 100.0, consistent; under Dismissal the same column gives 92.3 + 0.5 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 6.8 + 0.2 + 0.0 = 100.0, consistent. No value was computed or adjusted.