Types of Unfair Labor Practices Alleged, Fiscal Year 1987

p. 203. Three printed columns: stub, "Number of cases showing specific allegations", "Percent of total cases". The stub column has no printed heading (only stray specks in that part of the header box). Punctuation lost by the 1-bit scan: in the "Percent of total cases" column the decimal point drops out of a number of cells, which print as e.g. "0 1", "3 4", "43 4", "100 0", "61 8", "77 5". I have transcribed these with the decimal point restored (0.1, 3.4, 43.4, 100.0, 61.8, 77.5); the digits themselves are clear. Affected cells: 8(a)(1)(4)(5), 8(a)(1)(2)(3)(4), 8(a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5); recapitulation rows 8(a)(1)^2, 8(a)(2), 8(a)(4), 8(a)(5); 8(b)(1), 8(b)(2), 8(b)(3), 8(b)(4), 8(b)(1)(5), 8(b)(1)(6), 8(b)(2)(3), 8(b)(3)(5), 8(b)(1)(2)(6), 8(b)(1)(3)(5); recapitulation row 8(b)(1). There is also a stray ink dot to the left of 77.5 in the 8(b)(1) recapitulation row. Similarly, the periods in the two bold panel headings are not visible in the scan (they read "A Charges filed against employers under Sec 8(a)" and "B Charges filed against unions under Sec 8(b)" with gaps where the periods belong); I have written them as "A. ... Sec. 8(a)" and "B. ... Sec. 8(b)". The punctuation closing the two stub heads "Subsections of Sec. 8(a)" / "Subsections of Sec. 8(b)" is indistinct — a period or a colon; I used a period for both. The row label "8(a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)" is followed by a dot that may be a period or the first leader dot. "Recapitulation^1" (both occurrences) and the recapitulation label "8(a)(1)^2" carry raised footnote markers, but no footnote text appears on this crop — the table ends at the bottom rule immediately after the 8(b)(7) recapitulation row, so the texts for markers 1 and 2 are presumably on the facing/next page and `footnotes` is empty. The subsection list under Sec. 8(b) prints 8(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7) with no single 8(b)(5) line, as shown; the recapitulation below it does include an 8(b)(5) row. Values transcribed exactly as printed; no arithmetic checks applied.

p. 204. Three columns: stub, "Number of cases showing specific allegations", "Percent of total cases". The crop is the continuation page (p. 192) of Table 2, so the panel heading levels shown are the only ones printed. Decimal points: the scan drops or badly fades the period in most percent values (they appear as e.g. "0 9", "20 6", "74 1", "100 0"). These are decimal points in the printed percent column and are transcribed as such; only "100.0", "4.4", "68.8" and "0.2" show the point clearly. Every percent so read is arithmetically consistent with the case count and the section total (e.g. 13/1,430 = 0.9; 203/274 = 74.1), which supports the reading. Section-line punctuation: "B2. Analysis of 8(b)(7)" clearly shows a period after the letter-number, but the corresponding period is not visible after "B1", "C" or "D", nor after "Sec" in the C and D lines; these are transcribed as they appear on the image rather than regularised. Trailing periods before leader dots in row labels (e.g. "Total cases 8(b)(4). ...") were treated as leader-dot material and dropped. Footnote 2 is printed under this page but its marker is attached to text on the earlier page of the table, not on this crop. No arithmetic problems found: the Recapitulation subtotals equal the sums of the single and combined allegations above them in both panels (8(b)(4): A 63+65+1+3=132, B 984+65+7+3=1,059, C 13+1+7+3=24; 8(b)(7): A 55+2+11+2=70, B 14+2+2+2=20, C 188+11+2+2=203).