Types of Unfair Labor Practices Alleged, Fiscal Year 2007

p. 124. Three printed columns: stub, "Number of cases showing specific allegations", "Percent of total cases". The stub has no printed heading. Between the heading rule and the first body row ("Subsections of Sec. 8(a): Total cases") there is an empty band the height of a section line. By the pattern of the table (compare the printed "B. Charges filed against unions under Sec. 8(b)" line) a section line "A. Charges filed against employers under Sec. 8(a)" would belong there, but nothing is legible in that band on this image, so no row was entered for it. "Recapitulation" and "B. Charges filed against unions under Sec. 8(b)" are centered section lines that carry a raised 1 footnote marker and no values. The table is cut off at the bottom of the crop: the column rules continue past the last transcribed row, 8(b)(6), so further rows (and the footnote 1 text, which is not printed on this image) fall outside this crop. Percent cells printed as a bare "0" (rows 8(a)(1)(2)(4), 8(a)(1)(2)(4)(5), 8(a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)) are transcribed as printed, without a decimal.

p. 125. Continuation page of Table 2; three printed columns (stub, "Number of cases showing specific allegations", "Percent of total cases"), the stub heading being blank. The column heading reads "Number of cases show- / ing specific allegations" across two lines; the end-of-line hyphen has been repaired to "showing". "Recapitulation^1", "B1. Analysis of 8(b)(4)" and the second "Recapitulation" are centred section lines spanning the table with no values; their value cells are left empty. The raised 1 on the first "Recapitulation" is a footnote marker, but no footnote text is printed on this crop (the footnote presumably appears on the final page of the table), so `footnotes` is empty. Apparent inconsistency as printed, transcribed without correction: the Recapitulation block gives 8(b)(4) = 422 cases (7.1 percent), while the "B1. Analysis of 8(b)(4)" block gives "Total cases 8(b)(4)" = 394 (100.0 percent). Also as printed, the sub-percentages under the B1 Analysis block (6.3 + 63.2 + 1.8 + 22.3 + 5.1 + 0.5 + 0.8) sum to 100.0 but the final Recapitulation percentages (12.2 + 69.5 + 3.0 + 22.3) exceed 100 because a case may be counted under more than one subsection. Two value cells print a bare "0" rather than "0.0" (rows 8(b)(1)(2)(5) and 8(b)(1)(2)(3)(5)(6), Percent column); these are transcribed exactly as printed. No cells were illegible, and the crop shows the full width of the table.

p. 126. This page is a "—Continued" portion of Table 2, beginning mid-table at section B2; earlier sections (A, B1, etc.) are on the preceding page and are not in this crop. The table has three columns: the stub (whose heading is blank), "Number of cases showing specific allegations" (printed with an end-of-line hyphen, "show-ing"), and "Percent of total cases". The section lines "B2. Analysis of 8(b)(7)", "Recapitulation^1", "C. Charges filed under Sec. 8(e)" and "D. Charges filed Sec. 8(g)" are printed centered across the full table width and carry no values. All cells were legible; nothing was computed or corrected. Note as printed that within section B2 the detail figures (13 + 2 + 46 + 1 = 62) match the total, while the Recapitulation figures (14, 2, 47) exceed it, as footnote 1 explains.