Analysis of Methods of Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases Closed, Fiscal Year 1993

p. 139. Grid is 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. Print quality: the scan drops the decimal point in many percent cells (they appear as "100 0", "31 0", "0 9", "14 8", "37 5", "27 0", etc.). Every percent in this table is printed to one decimal, so I restored the points; the digits themselves are clear. Doubtful or unusual cells: - "Before issuance of complaint", CD cases Number: printed as a parenthesised raised 2, i.e. a footnote reference standing in place of a value, transcribed "(2)". Column arithmetic (5,823 + 875 + 280 + 0 + 1 + 6 + 34 = 7,019) implies the value is 0. - "Agreement of the parties", CD cases Number: a small raised tick precedes the 2 — possibly a footnote-2 marker, possibly a scan speck. Transcribed as "2"; the value 2 is confirmed by the subtotals (informal 2 + formal 0). - "Total number of cases closed", All C cases "Percent of total method": printed "0.0", which is unexpected for a total row (other years leave it blank). Transcribed as printed. - "Formal settlement", CG cases Number: a stray mark sits before the 0; read as "0". - "Formal settlement", CA cases percent reads "0.5" although 141/23,537 rounds to 0.6. Transcribed as printed. - Percent cells containing only an em-dash rule are "". All column sums and subtotals check out (e.g. informal + formal = agreement of the parties = 10,170; the seven case-type Number columns sum to the All C Number in every row), which confirms the column assignments. Crop: the caption carries footnote marker 1 and the body references footnote 2, but no footnote text falls inside the crop. The table continues past the bottom edge — "Compliance with" is the last fully printed row and a further row is cut off below it — so `footnotes` is empty.

p. 140. Crop is a "—Continued" page: the table body starts mid-section (the rows shown at the top are sub-items of a formal-action group whose heading is on the preceding page), and no footnote block is printed on this image, so `footnotes` is empty even though the caption carries a marker 1 and two cells reference footnote 2. Decimal points: this scan drops the period in a large share of the percent cells (printed as "1 6", "63 0", "0 6", "23 4", "39 5", "31 7", "27 2", "29 5", "30 7", "100 0", "29 2", "32 6", "20 0", "42 5", "2 1", "1 1", "0 0", "0 2", "0 3", "2 6" etc.). Every one of those columns is set to one decimal place, so they are transcribed with the decimal point restored (1.6, 63.0, 0.6, ...), the same way a space after a digit-grouping comma is closed up. Doubtful cells: - "By administrative law judge's decision", All C cases / Percent of total method: read as 0.0, but 32 of 11,476 is 0.28 percent, so the printed figure is probably 0.3 and the second digit is unreliable at this resolution. - "Dismissal / Before issuance of complaint", All C cases / Percent of total method: read as 98.5, while 11,273 of 11,476 is 98.2. Similarly "Withdrawal / Before issuance of complaint" read as 97.3 against a computed 97.2. Transcribed as read; the units digit in each is somewhat uncertain. - Last row ("Contested"), CA cases / Percent of total closed: the glyph prints indistinctly (looks like "0!"); read as 0.1, which is consistent with 6 + 36 = 42 in the CA Number column above it. - CD cases / Number in both "Before issuance of complaint" rows holds a parenthesised raised 2 and no figure; transcribed "(^2)". Note that the CD column shows 0 in the "Withdrawal" and "Dismissal" total rows above them, so the reference is in the Number position as printed, not the percent position. Dash rules ("——"), used where no value applies, are rendered as empty cells; printed zeros are kept as 0. Arithmetic checks: the CB, CC, CD, CE, CG and CP columns of the Dismissal block sum exactly to their total rows; the All C (11,273+84+17+32+65 = 11,471 vs 11,476) and CA (6,738+67+15+20+42 = 6,882 vs 6,887) columns fall 5 short, which may mean the "By administrative law judge's decision" figures are printed as 37 and 25 rather than 32 and 20 — but 32 and 20 are what I read, and they are mutually consistent across that row (20+2+10 = 32).

p. 141. This crop is the tail end of a table continued from the preceding page ("—Continued" in the caption); only four body rows are printed here, and the upper sections of the table (including the rows that the dagger/footnote 2 marker presumably attaches to) are on earlier pages. The column headings are printed in full on this page, so they are given. Decimal points: in the scan the period has dropped out of three cells, which print as "0 0" / "0 6". These are cells (row "By circuit court of appeals decree", column All C cases / Percent of total method) and (same row, column CA cases / Percent of total closed), both transcribed as "0.0"; and (row "10(k) actions...", column All C cases / Percent of total closed), transcribed as "0.6". Every other percent cell in the table carries an explicit decimal point, so these are read as scan dropouts rather than different printed values. Dash rules: many percent cells hold a long em-dash rule (——) rather than a value; per the transcription convention these are rendered as empty cells. They appear in: all seven non-All-C percent columns for rows 1–3 except where a value is printed, the All C "Percent of total closed" cell of "By Supreme Court action", and the CE/CG/CP percent columns of the last row. Possible printing oddity (transcribed as printed, not corrected): "By Supreme Court action" shows Number 0 with a dash in All C "Percent of total closed" but a printed 0.0 in All C "Percent of total method", while the row above shows 0.0 in both. Footnote 2's marker is not visible anywhere on this crop. Row 4's label wraps over three printed lines with an end-of-line hyphen in "busi-ness"; it has been joined into one label. The em-dash inside that label ("not achieved—firm") is part of the printed wording, not a dash rule.