NLRB Stats Archive › Annual Reports › FY1990 › Types of Unfair Labor Practices Alleged, Fiscal Year 1990
Types of Unfair Labor Practices Alleged, Fiscal Year 1990
Stitched from pp. 150–151.
| Number of cases showing specific allegations | Percent of total cases | |
|---|---|---|
| A. Charges filed against employers under sec. 8(a) | ||
| Subsections of Sec. 8(a): | ||
| Total cases | 24,075 | 100.0 |
| 8(a)(1) | 4,129 | 17.2 |
| 8(a)(1)(2) | 255 | 1.1 |
| 8(a)(1)(3) | 8,617 | 35.8 |
| 8(a)(1)(4) | 171 | 0.7 |
| 8(a)(1)(5) | 7,477 | 31.1 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(3) | 263 | 1.1 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(4) | 6 | 0.0 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(5) | 127 | 0.5 |
| 8(a)(1)(3)(4) | 600 | 2.5 |
| 8(a)(1)(3)(5) | 2,196 | 9.1 |
| 8(a)(1)(4)(5) | 20 | 0.1 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(3)(4) | 10 | 0.0 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(3)(5) | 91 | 0.4 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(4)(5) | 4 | 0.0 |
| 8(a)(1)(3)(4)(5) | 101 | 0.4 |
| 8(a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) | 8 | 0.0 |
| Recapitulation | ||
| 8(a)(1) | 24,075 | 100.0 |
| 8(a)(2) | 764 | 3.2 |
| 8(a)(3) | 11,886 | 49.4 |
| 8(a)(4) | 920 | 3.8 |
| 8(a)(5) | 10,024 | 41.6 |
| B. Charges filed against unions under sec. 8(b) | ||
| Subsections of Sec. 8(b): | ||
| Total cases | 9,684 | 100.0 |
| 8(b)(1) | 6,289 | 64.9 |
| 8(b)(2) | 97 | 1.0 |
| 8(b)(3) | 259 | 2.7 |
| 8(b)(4) | 1,262 | 13.0 |
| 8(b)(5) | 2 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(6) | 8 | 0.1 |
| 8(b)(7) | 265 | 2.7 |
| 8(b)(1)(2) | 1,096 | 11.3 |
| 8(b)(1)(3) | 311 | 3.2 |
| 8(b)(1)(5) | 2 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(1)(6) | 10 | 0.1 |
| 8(b)(2)(3) | 6 | 0.1 |
| 8(b)(2)(5) | 1 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(3)(6) | 1 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(1)(2)(3) | 63 | 0.7 |
| 8(b)(1)(2)(5) | 1 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(1)(2)(6) | 1 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(1)(3)(5) | 3 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(1)(3)(6) | 2 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(1)(5)(6) | 1 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(1)(2)(3)(5) | 1 | 0.0 |
| 8(b)(1)(2)(3)(6) | 3 | 0.0 |
| Recapitulation | ||
| 8(b)(1) | 7,783 | 80.4 |
| 8(b)(2) | 1,269 | 13.1 |
| 8(b)(3) | 649 | 6.7 |
| 8(b)(4) | 1,262 | 13.0 |
| 8(b)(5) | 11 | 0.1 |
| 8(b)(6) | 26 | 0.3 |
| 8(b)(7) | 265 | 2.7 |
| B1. Analysis of 8(b)(4) | ||
| Total cases 8(b)(4) | 1,262 | 100.0 |
| 8(b)(4)(A) | 81 | 6.4 |
| 8(b)(4)(B) | 842 | 66.7 |
| 8(b)(4)(C) | 8 | 0.6 |
| 8(b)(4)(D) | 297 | 23.5 |
| 8(b)(4)(A)(B) | 29 | 2.3 |
| 8(b)(4)(A)(C) | 3 | 0.2 |
| 8(b)(4)(B)(C) | 2 | 0.2 |
| Recapitulation | ||
| 8(b)(4)(A) | 113 | 9.0 |
| 8(b)(4)(B) | 873 | 69.2 |
| 8(b)(4)(C) | 13 | 1.0 |
| 8(b)(4)(D) | 297 | 23.5 |
0 of 64 figures sit in a row or column sum that works out.
Reader’s notes
p. 150. Three columns: stub, "Number of cases showing specific allegations", "Percent of total cases". The stub column has no printed heading. "A. Charges filed against employers under sec. 8(a)", "Recapitulation^1" (twice) and "B. Charges filed against unions under sec. 8(b)" are centered section lines spanning the page with no values; they are transcribed as label-only rows. "Subsections of Sec. 8(a):" / "Subsections of Sec. 8(b):" are likewise label-only lines, with the indented "Total cases" row carrying the figures. Decimal points: in this 1-bit scan the decimal point is faint or dropped in several percent cells, which print as e.g. "0 7", "0 5", "0 1", "0 4", "0 0", "100 0", "64 9", "1 0", "3 2", "13 1", "2 7". I have written them with the decimal point (0.7, 0.5, 0.1, 0.4, 0.0, 100.0, 64.9, 1.0, 3.2, 13.1, 2.7), treating the gap as a scan/inking artifact consistent with the rest of the column; the affected rows are 8(a)(1)(4), 8(a)(1)(2)(5), 8(a)(1)(4)(5), 8(a)(1)(2)(3)(5), 8(a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5), "Total cases" under sec. 8(b), 8(b)(1), 8(b)(2), 8(b)(1)(3), 8(b)(1)(3)(5), and in the second Recapitulation 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(7). Footnote markers: a raised 1 appears on both "Recapitulation" section lines and a raised 2 on the "8(a)(1)" line of the first Recapitulation block. The footnote texts themselves are not printed within this crop (the image ends just below the last data row), so `footnotes` is empty. Internal consistency of the printed figures, transcribed as printed and not corrected: in the sec. 8(b) Recapitulation the percentages sum to well over 100 because a case can show several allegations, which is expected; no cell appeared to be a misprint. A stray ink mark (a small scribble) sits in the top-left margin above the caption and a stray comma-like mark appears in the percent column beside "Total cases" of panel A and in the stub near 8(b)(5); these are marginalia/specks, not data.
p. 151. The crop shows no column headings at all, so header_rows is empty; the two value columns are a case count and a percent column (the "Total cases 8(b)(4)" row reads 1,262 and 100.0). "B1. Analysis of 8(b)(4)" and "Recapitulation^1" are centered section lines spanning the full table width above their respective rules; they are transcribed as label-only rows with empty value cells. The raised 1 after "Recapitulation" is a footnote marker, but no footnote text is printed within this crop, so footnotes is empty. A further centered section line is cut by the bottom edge of the crop: only the upper halves of its letters are visible and it appears to read "B2. Analysis of 8(b)(7)". Because it is incomplete on this image and none of its data rows are present, it is not included in rows. Scan artifacts render some dotted i's as dotless (e.g. the heading prints as "Recapıtulatıon"); transcribed with normal spelling. The row labels are followed by long, irregular runs of leader dots, which have been dropped. Internal checks pass as printed: the seven 8(b)(4) subsection counts sum to 1,262, and the recapitulation values (113, 873, 13, 297) equal the corresponding single plus combined counts. No suspected misprints.
Source image
Source data: U.S. NLRB Annual Reports (public domain). Reconstruction by NLRB Stats Archive. Read by claude-opus-5 (effort max, prompt extract_v1) from the 300-dpi scan; stitched by page. Updated October 2026.