Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1991

p. 187. The crop ends mid-table: the last printed row, "Compliance with", is the first line of a new major category and its remaining sub-rows (and any footnote block, including the texts for markers 1 and 2) fall on the following page, so `footnotes` is empty. Decimal points: the scan drops or greys out the period in a number of percent cells, which print as e.g. "100 0" (Total number of cases closed, CG percent), "100 0" (Agreement of the parties, All C "Percent of total method"), "18 8" (Agreement of the parties, CB percent), "44 3" (Informal settlement, CC percent), "0 3" (Formal settlement, CA percent), "0 1" and "0 0" (first "Stipulated decision" row, All C "Percent of total method" and CB percent), "2 2" (Compliance with, All C "Percent of total closed") and "6 1" (Compliance with, CE percent). All are restored with the decimal point; each is confirmed by the surrounding column pattern and, where checkable, by the ratio to the column total (e.g. 3/49 = 6.1, 345/778 = 44.3, 16/16 = 100.0). Row "Total number of cases closed", column All C "Percent of total method": printed as "0.0". This looks like a misprint — the cell is normally blank or 100.0 in this table — but it is transcribed as printed. Row "Before issuance of complaint", column CD cases "Number": the cell holds a parenthesised raised 2, i.e. a footnote reference standing in place of a value, transcribed as "(2)". Its adjoining CD percent cell is a dash rule and is "". Arithmetic suggests the underlying count is 0 (the CD informal-settlement total of 1 is fully accounted for by the next row), but nothing is computed here. Dash rules ("——") used in place of a percentage are rendered as "" throughout; printed zeros are kept as "0". Specks of ink appear beside the CD "Number" cell of "After hearing opened, before issuance of administrative law judge's decision" and the CE "Number" cell of "After hearing opened"; these are scanning artifacts, not digits or markers. The caption carries footnote marker 1 and is omitted per instructions.

p. 188. 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. Crop boundaries: this is a "—Continued" page, so the opening section head (the formal-action group that the first six rows belong to) is on the preceding page and is not printed here. The table also runs past the bottom of the crop — the last printed row is "Contested" under "By Board decision", and no footnote block is visible, so `footnotes` is empty even though markers 1 (caption) and 2 (two CD cells) are referenced on this page. Running head bleed-through: the word "Appendix" is overprinted across the header band at the bottom-left of the stub heading / "Number" column of All C cases. It is the page running head, not a table heading, and is excluded. Dropped decimal points: the scan loses the period in many one-decimal percent cells, which print as e.g. "0 7", "2 5", "31 8", "33 8", "56 2", "6 1", "0 1", "22 6", "2 0", "0 0", "28 1". These are rendered here with the decimal point restored (0.7, 2.5, 31.8, …); the digits themselves are unambiguous, and the restored values reconcile with the row and column arithmetic (e.g. 10,052/0.318 and 10,685/0.338 both imply total closed ≈ 31,610). CD cases, Number column, rows "Before issuance of complaint" under Withdrawal and under Dismissal: the cell holds a raised "2" in parentheses standing in place of a value, i.e. a reference to footnote 2 rather than a figure. Transcribed as the literal characters "(2)"; the paired percent cell is a dash rule and is "". Dash rules ("——") used for nil/not-applicable percents are transcribed as "" throughout. Suspected misprints, transcribed as printed: - "By Board decision" (second occurrence, under Dismissal), All C cases "Percent of total method" = 0.7, but 129/10,685 = 1.2. Its two components print 0.0 and 0.7, which do not sum to the 0.7 shown. If the component "Adopting…" cell were 0.5 the three would reconcile as 0.5 + 0.7 = 1.2; I read the printed glyphs as 0.0 and 0.7, so both the parent and the "Adopting…" cell are doubtful. - "Adopting administrative law judge's decision (no exceptions filed)" (second occurrence), All C cases "Percent of total method" = 0.0, but 56/10,685 = 0.5. Same cluster as above. - "After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing" under Withdrawal, All C cases "Percent of total method" = 3.5, while 343/10,052 = 3.4. Glyph reads 3.5. - "Adopting administrative law judge's decision (no exceptions filed)" (second occurrence), All C "Percent of total closed" = 0.1, while 56/31,610 = 0.2; the companion CA cell prints 0.2. Minor: in "After Board or court decision", the All C "Number" cell is preceded by a stray leader dot (prints as ". 0"); transcribed as "0".

p. 189. The table is printed landscape (the crop reads sideways); it has been transcribed in normal reading order: stub, then All C cases, CA, CB, CC, CD, CE, CG, CP (18 columns). This is a continuation page, so the body begins mid-table with "By circuit court of appeals decree"; a horizontal rule separates the first two rows from the "10(k) actions" and "Otherwise" rows. Column grouping: "All C cases" is read as spanning three columns (Number, Percent of total closed, Percent of total method) because the group label is centred over all three; the rule above "Percent of total method" is faint in this scan, so it is possible that heading is instead a standalone tall column outside the "All C cases" group. A small stray speck sits in the group band above "Percent of total method". Every percent cell left empty here holds a printed em-dash (nil) in the original — "By Supreme Court action" (All C and CA–CP), and the CA–CP percent cells of the other rows as shown — recorded as "" per the blank/dash rule. Doubtful cells: CA cases "Percent of total closed" for the "Otherwise ..." row prints as what looks like "04"; the decimal point appears lost in this 1-bit scan, and it is transcribed as 0.4. The "Percent of total method" column reads 0.0 for both the "10(k) actions" row and the "Otherwise ..." row, which looks odd for a stand-alone method category but is transcribed as printed. In the "10(k) actions" label the last word is degraded and could read "dispositons"; it is transcribed as "dispositions". The footnote line sits at the very bottom edge of the crop and is partially cut; its leading marker (a digit or "NOTE.—") is not legible, so only the legible wording is given. The caption line ("Table 7.—Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed ...") was omitted as instructed.