Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1992

p. 149. Crop is cut off below the "Compliance with" row: the table continues (further disposition categories) and no footnote text is printed on this image, so `footnotes` is empty even though markers are referenced (a raised 1 on the caption, and a footnote 2 referenced in the body). Last row label: the printed label reads "Compliance with" followed by leader dots, but the leader run has a visible break about two-thirds across, which may be a faded word or two (the category in this table is normally a longer phrase, e.g. compliance with an administrative law judge decision, Board order, or court decree). Only "Compliance with" is legible, so only that is transcribed. "Before issuance of complaint" row, CD cases / Number column: the cell holds a raised 2 inside parentheses, i.e. a reference to footnote 2 rather than a count; transcribed as "(2)". (Arithmetic supports this: CD informal settlement is 2 and the "After issuance of complaint" line already carries that 2.) Faint or broken decimal points in the scan, read as decimal points: "Informal settlement" / CP cases Percent of total closed prints as "33 6" (read 33.6); "Formal settlement" / All C cases Percent of total closed prints as "06" (read 0.6); "Formal settlement" / CP cases Percent of total closed prints with a comma-like mark (read 2.0). Each is consistent with the column's arithmetic. Em-dash rules ("——") used where a percentage is not applicable (the Percent of total method cell of the "Total number of cases closed" row, and the percent cells beside zero counts) are transcribed as "". The percentages appear to be truncated rather than rounded, which makes several small values print as 0.0 where rounding would give 0.1 (e.g. "After issuance of complaint, before opening of hearing" CA cases 18 = 0.079 percent, printed 0.0; "Consent decree" CA cases 15, printed 0.0). These are transcribed exactly as printed.

p. 150. 18 columns: stub, then All C cases (Number / Percent of total closed / Percent of total method) and two columns (Number / Percent of total closed) for each of CA, CB, CC, CD, CE, CG, CP. This is a "—Continued" page, so no footnotes are printed under the table (the caption carries a raised 1, excluded with the caption). The first six rows are the tail of a method block whose heading and total are on the preceding page; the implied method total is about 785 (2.5 + 68.9 + 28.3 + 0.3 = 100.0), so the crop is incomplete at the top. Em-dash rules in the percent columns are transcribed as "" throughout. CD cases / Number for the two "Before issuance of complaint" rows holds a parenthesized raised 2 (a footnote reference, not a count); transcribed literally as "(2)". Note the parent rows "Withdrawal" and "Dismissal" print a plain 0 in that same column, so the reference and the totals look inconsistent as printed. Worn decimal points: "Supreme Court action", All C / Percent of total method prints as "03" and "Adopting administrative law judge's decision (no exceptions filed)" (the row under "By Board decision"), All C / Percent of total method prints as "00". Both are read as 0.3 and 0.0 respectively; 0.3 is confirmed by arithmetic (2/785 = 0.3). Cells I read as printed but that do not compute, flagged as possible misprints or as the limit of this 1-bit scan: "Before issuance of complaint" (Dismissal block), All C / Percent of total method reads 98.9 but 11,341/11,535 = 98.3; "By Board decision", All C columns read 0.2 and 0.2 but compute to 0.3 and 0.8; "Adopting administrative law judge's decision (no exceptions filed)" (Dismissal block), All C columns read 0.0 and 0.0 but compute to 0.1 and 0.3; "Contested" (Dismissal block), All C / Percent of total method reads 0.2 but computes to 0.5. Every other cell I checked reconciles exactly, including the whole Withdrawal block and the first six rows, so these four rows are the only arithmetic outliers. Nothing was corrected. A small stray ink squiggle sits in the blank band of the CD cases / Number column just above the "Circuit court of appeals decree" row, and a stray dot sits in the CE cases / Percent of total closed column on the "Adopting administrative law judge's decision (no exceptions filed)" row of the Dismissal block; both are read as scan artifacts, not characters.

p. 151. This is the final continuation page of Table 7; the body shows only the last four rows of the table, which begins on earlier pages. The table is 18 columns wide: stub plus "All C cases" (Number, Percent of total closed, Percent of total method) plus two columns (Number, Percent of total closed) for each of CA, CB, CC, CD, CE, CG and CP cases. Doubtful cell: row "By circuit court of appeals decree", column "All C cases / Number" — the scan shows what looks like "11" followed by a small trailing hyphen-like mark ("11-"). I read it as 11 (it matches the CA figure of 11, all other case types being 0) and treat the mark as a scan artifact; it is not a raised footnote marker. Footnote 2 is printed under the table but no superscript "2" marker is legible anywhere on this crop; by its wording it most likely attaches to the "10(k) actions (see Table 7A for details of dispositions)" row or to a heading/row printed on an earlier page of the table. Em-dash rules ("——") in the percent columns, and the blank "Percent of total closed" cell for "By Supreme Court action" under All C cases, are transcribed as empty strings. A horizontal rule separates the second and third body rows (the two appellate-stage lines belong to a block that begins on the preceding page).