Special Litigation Involving NLRB; Outcome of Proceedings in Which Court Decisions Issued in Fiscal Year 1991

p. 226. The table is printed broadside (landscape) and the crop is rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise relative to upright reading, so column headings run up the left edge and each table row is a vertical strip; the grid above is the upright reading. 13 columns: stub plus four court groups (Total—all courts, In courts of appeals, In district courts, In bankruptcy courts), each with Number decided / Upholding Board position / Contrary to Board position. ARITHMETIC INCONSISTENCY — low-confidence cells: "Action by other parties" prints 22 / 9 (appeals) / 13 (district), but its detail lines as transcribed sum to only 18 / 6 / 12, a shortfall of 4 / 3 / 1. The missing counts must sit in one or more of the rows "To review settlement agreements", "To review nonfinal orders", "To restrain NLRB from" and the five indented lines under the last of these ("Proceeding with 10(e) application" through "Other application of Rule"), all of which I read as 0 in every column. These are single small digits in a 1-bit scan and I could not resolve them beyond doubt at the available resolution, so one or more of those zeros may be a misread (e.g. a 3 in the courts-of-appeals columns and a 1 in the district-court columns) rather than a printed inconsistency. Everything else in the grid cross-foots: 9+13+1=23 for the totals line; 1+22=23; 11+5+2=18 and 4+2=6 and 7+3+2=12 under "To compel NLRB to". Other points: every row has "Number decided" equal to "Upholding Board position" with "Contrary to Board position" 0, which held consistently across the whole table and supports the column alignment. The row "Take action in C case" prints 0 while the line immediately below it, "Issue complaint or prosecute complaint", prints 11 — transcribed as printed; if "Take action in C case" were intended as a subtotal heading this would be a misprint, but a value (0) is printed on that line. The label "Other application of Rule" ends there followed by leader dots; if a rule number was printed after "Rule" it is not legible in this scan. "Comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)" carries a raised 1 footnote marker, but no footnote text falls inside this crop — the footnote block, if printed, is outside the cropped table area. Scattered single-pixel specks appear in the "Contrary to Board position" bands (courts of appeals group); these were treated as scanner noise, not as printed marks.

p. 227. The page is printed broadside (table rotated 90 degrees on the page); the crop is the rotated image, so all cells were read sideways at fairly low effective resolution. This is a continuation crop: only the last block of the table ("Other" and its four component lines) appears, and the "Other" line is a subtotal line carrying values, not a bare section heading. Digits are small and somewhat blurred; every reading was cross-checked for additive consistency and the grid is internally consistent (the four component lines sum to the "Other" line in each column, and courts of appeals + district courts + bankruptcy courts sum to "Total—all courts" in each row), which supports the values given. The footnote marker "1" referenced by the printed footnote does not appear anywhere in this crop — it must be attached to a row label or heading on the earlier part of the table. The footnote's final word ("prevailed.") sits right at the bottom edge of the crop and is partly clipped but legible. A small stray ink mark sits in the "In district courts / Number decided" heading cell; it is not a footnote marker.