Types of Unfair Labor Practices Alleged, Fiscal Year 2002

p. 89. The table is cut off at the bottom of the crop: the last transcribed row, 8(b)(1)(5), sits on the bottom edge and the 8(b) panel plainly continues (and its own Recapitulation block, plus the text of footnote 1, are on the continuation). No footnote text is printed on this image, so `footnotes` is empty even though the marker 1 appears on the "Recapitulation" band. Between the column headings and the first body row there is a full-width band with no vertical column rules, formatted exactly like the later "Recapitulation^1" and "B. Charges filed against unions under Sec. 8(b)" section bands. In the printed series this band carries "A. Charges filed against employers under Sec. 8(a)", but on this crop the band is blank — no text is legible — so no row was emitted for it rather than reconstructing a heading that is not visible. Digit grouping is inconsistent in the source and is transcribed as printed: four-digit values are written with a comma in some cells (23,036; 10,969; 10,119) and without one in others (3742; 8279; 7874; 1928; 7073; 5240). Two cells in the percent column print a bare "0" rather than "0.0" (rows 8(a)(1)(2)(4), 8(a)(1)(2)(4)(5) and 8(b)(1)(5)); these are transcribed as "0". The stub column has no printed heading; its header cell is empty. All percentages shown are internally consistent with the counts and the stated totals (23,036 for 8(a), 7073 for 8(b)), so no suspected misprints.

p. 90. This is a continuation page: the only column headings printed are the two value-column headings; the stub column carries no heading, so its header cell is empty. No footnote text is printed on this crop, although the marker "1" appears on both "Recapitulation" section lines (the note itself must be on another page). The row "Total cases 8(b)(4)": the label wraps to a second line reading "8(b)(4)", but that second line is clipped/overprinted by the row rule and the following row, so only the top halves of its characters are visible; the reading "8(b)(4)" is inferred from those partial glyphs and from the section heading "B1. Analysis of 8(b)(4)" above it. The numbers 688 and 100.0 belong to that row and are clear. Possible internal inconsistency, transcribed as printed: the first Recapitulation block gives 8(b)(4) = 712 (10.1 percent), while the B1 section's "Total cases" line gives 688 (100.0 percent). Likewise the second Recapitulation's components (53, 416, 31, 212) do not sum to 688; no values were adjusted. "Percent of total cases" entries printed as a bare zero (rows 8(b)(2)(5), 8(b)(3)(5), 8(b)(3)(6), 8(b)(1)(3)(6), 8(b)(1)(2)(3)(6), 8(b)(1)(2)(5)(6)) are transcribed as "0" exactly as printed, not "0.0".

p. 91. The crop is a continuation page (caption reads "—Continued"); it begins with section B2, so earlier sections (A, B1) of Table 2 are on preceding pages. The table has three printed columns; the stub column head is blank. Section-label rows (B2. Analysis of 8(b)(7); Recapitulation^1; C. Charges filed under Sec. 8(e); D. Charges filed Sec. 8(g)) span the full width and carry no values. The raised 1 after "Recapitulation" is the footnote marker. All cells are clearly printed; no doubtful digits. Arithmetic as printed: in B2 the subsection percentages (26.3 + 9.3 + 59.3 + 2.5 + 2.5) sum to 99.9 rather than 100.0, and the Recapitulation counts (37 + 14 + 73 = 124) exceed the 118 total cases, which the footnote explains. Values transcribed as printed; nothing computed or corrected.