NLRB Stats Archive › Annual Reports › FY2009 › Injunction Litigation Under Sections 10(e), 10(j), and 10(l), Fiscal Year 2009
Injunction Litigation Under Sections 10(e), 10(j), and 10(l), Fiscal Year 2009
| Total proceedings | Injunction proceedings | Total dispositions | Disposition of injunctions | Pending in Appellate Court Sept. 30, 2009 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total proceedings | Pending in Appellate Court Oct. 01, 2008 | Filed in Appellate Court Fiscal Year 2009 | Total dispositions | Granted | Denied | Settled | Withdrawn | Pending in Appellate Court Sept. 30, 2009 | |
| Under Sec. 10(e) total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Under Sec. 10(j) total | 27 | 4 | 23 | 23 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 4 |
| 8(a)(1) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 8(a)(1)(3) | 7 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| 8(a)(1)(3)(5) | 7 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| 8(a)(1)(5) | 11 | 0 | 11 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| Under Sec. 10(l) total | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 8(b)(4)(A) & 8(b)(4)(B) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 8(b)(4)(B) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 8(b)(4)(D) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
- 1 Totals for cases identified in this table as pending on October 1, 2008, differ from the FY 2008 Annual Report due to postreport adjustments to last year's "on docket" and/or "closed figures."
38 of 58 figures sit in a row or column sum that works out.
Reader’s notes
p. 152. The page prints the table as two stacked blocks, each with its own full set of column headings and its own column rules; the two blocks have identical column structure (10 columns, blank stub heading), so they are transcribed as one grid. header_rows reproduces the first (upper) block's headings, which serve the single row "Under Sec. 10(e) total". The second (lower) block, which serves all remaining rows ("Under Sec. 10(j) total" through "8(b)(4)(D)"), repeats the same headings with "District Court" in place of "Appellate Court" and with a hyphen break in the stub-adjacent heading; printed verbatim its two levels read: level 1 = ["", "Total proceedings", "Injunction proceedings", "Injunction proceedings", "Total dispositions", "Disposition of injunctions" x4, "Pending in District Court Sept. 30, 2009"]; level 2 = ["", "Total proceedings", "Pending in District Court Oct. 01, 2008", "Filed in District Court Fiscal Year 2009^1", "Total dispositions", "Granted", "Denied", "Settled", "Withdrawn", "Pending in District Court Sept. 30, 2009"]. The only footnote marker in the table is the raised 1 on that second block's "Filed in District Court Fiscal Year 2009" heading; because that heading is not the one carried in header_rows, the marker does not appear in any transcribed cell. Both blocks print "Total proceedings" / "Total pro-ceedings" and "Total dispositions" as tall single headings spanning both levels, as do the trailing "Pending in ... Sept. 30, 2009" columns; these are repeated in both levels per instruction. Apparent arithmetic problem, transcribed as printed: in the row "Under Sec. 10(l) total" the four disposition cells (Granted 1, Denied 1, Settled 2, Withdrawn 1) sum to 5, but the row's "Total dispositions" cell reads 4; the three component rows below it sum to Granted 1, Denied 0, Settled 2, Withdrawn 1 (total 4), so the printed 1 in the Denied column of the 10(l) total row appears to be a misprint. All other rows and columns foot correctly (e.g. the 10(j) total row and its four 8(a) component rows agree in every column). Nothing is cut off by the crop; the caption and the footnote are fully legible and no cell is doubtful apart from the 10(l)/Denied cell noted above, which I read as 1 with good confidence.
Source image
Source data: U.S. NLRB Annual Reports (public domain). Reconstruction by NLRB Stats Archive. Read by claude-opus-5 (effort max, prompt extract_v1) from the 300-dpi scan; stitched by page. Updated October 2026.