Types of Unfair Labor Practices Alleged, Fiscal Year 1995

p. 133. Three printed 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" and "B. Charges filed against unions under Sec. 8(b)" are centered banner lines spanning the full table width; they are transcribed as label-only rows. "Subsections of Sec. 8(a):" / "Subsections of Sec. 8(b):" are flush-left section labels with no values, and the indented "Total cases" line beneath each carries that section's values, so each pair is kept as two separate rows. The raised 1 on "Recapitulation^1" is a footnote marker, but no footnote text appears within this crop; the body ends with "8(b)(1)(2)(3)(6)" at a closing double rule, so the 8(b) recapitulation block and the footnote text presumably continue on the following page. Doubtful/noted cells: the 8(a)(1)(2)(3) row shows a small stray ink mark just right of "177" in the cases column and another faint speck in the percent column area; I read the values as 177 and 0.7. A stray dot also sits above the "Subsections of Sec. 8(b):" line and a small smudge precedes the leader dots of the second "Total cases" row; neither is a footnote marker. Values are transcribed exactly as printed; no arithmetic checking or correction was done. Note as printed: in the 8(a) recapitulation, 8(a)(1) equals the 26,244 total at 100.0 percent.

p. 134. The crop is a continuation page: it carries the column headings but begins mid-table, so the earlier sections of Table 2 (including section A and the top of part B) are on the preceding page. Decimal points in the percent column are broken or missing in the scan for several cells; I have written them as decimal points because the column is uniformly one-decimal and the arithmetic confirms it. Affected cells (row label, Percent of total cases): 8(b)(3) prints "9 9"; 8(b)(5) prints "0 2"; 8(b)(6) prints "0 3"; 8(b)(4)(B) in B1 prints "55 0"; 8(b)(4)(A)(B) prints "2 7"; 8(b)(4)(A)(C) prints "0 1"; "Total cases 8(e)" prints "100 0". In the second Recapitulation, the 8(b)(4)(D) row has a stray raised dot printed just left of "204" in the "Number of cases" column. I read it as a scan speck / broken leader dot rather than a footnote marker, so it is not transcribed. Several row labels are degraded so that a closing parenthesis reads as an "X" (e.g. "8(bX4)", "8(b)(7XA)(B)"); these are scanning artifacts of the normal "8(b)(4)" / "8(b)(7)(A)(B)" forms and are transcribed in the regular form. The section line for part C prints as "C. Charges filed under Sec 8(e)" with the period after "Sec" faint or dropped; I have written "Sec." to match the parallel "D. Charges filed under Sec. 8(g)" line. The section headings "Recapitulation", "B1. Analysis of 8(b)(4)", "B2. Analysis of 8(b)(7)", "C. Charges filed under Sec. 8(e)" and "D. Charges filed under Sec. 8(g)" are centred across the full table width and carry no values; they are transcribed as label-only rows. All three "Recapitulation" lines carry a raised footnote 1. All printed figures are internally consistent (the recapitulation subtotals equal the sums of the component rows, and the percents match the totals 7,756 implied for part B, 667 and 98); no suspected misprints.