## Facts

- Agricultural employers operating as Sam Andrews’ Sons were charged with unfair labor practices connected to a union representation election.
- The ALRB General Counsel filed complaints alleging the employers unlawfully discharged and demoted employees, engaged in unlawful surveillance and interrogation, and otherwise interfered with employee rights under the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA).
- A related petition sought to set aside an election on the theory that employer misconduct affected the result.
- Evidentiary hearings were held in December 1975 and January 1976 before an Administrative Law Officer (ALO).
- During the hearings, the employers moved to disqualify the ALO for bias under an ALRB regulation permitting withdrawal on a showing of “personal bias or disqualification” supported by a timely affidavit.
- The ALO denied the disqualification request, later found unfair labor practices, and recommended remedies.
- The ALRB adopted the ALO’s findings and recommendations and stated it independently reviewed the entire record, but it did not separately discuss the disqualification claim.
- On judicial review, the California Supreme Court granted review limited to the disqualification question.

## Issues

1. Whether the ALO’s background or conduct showed actual bias or an objectively intolerable probability of unfairness requiring disqualification under due process principles applicable to ALRA adjudications.
2. If disqualification should have occurred, whether the ALRB’s independent review of the record cured or rendered harmless any error.

## Decision

- The court upheld the ALRB’s decision and rejected the due process challenge based on alleged ALO bias.
- The court held the record did not show actual bias or an unacceptable probability of unfairness requiring the ALO’s recusal.
- The court further concluded that, even assuming error, petitioners failed to show prejudice in light of the ALRB’s stated independent review of the record.

## Legal Principles

- Due process disqualification of an administrative adjudicator requires proof of actual bias or circumstances creating an objectively intolerable risk of unfairness or prejudgment.
- Prior professional advocacy or employment history (including work representing employees or unions) is not, standing alone, a disqualifying ground.
- Adverse evidentiary or procedural rulings, credibility determinations, or a party’s dissatisfaction with the fact-finder’s weighing of evidence generally do not establish disqualifying bias without additional objective indicia of partiality.
- Independent agency review of the record may reduce the risk that any hearing officer partiality controls the outcome and can support a finding of harmlessness absent a showing of prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court held that an ALO in ALRA proceedings is not disqualified based on prior employee-side work or adverse hearing rulings absent a showing of actual bias or an objectively intolerable probability of unfairness, and it sustained the agency order where the board independently reviewed the record and no prejudice was shown.


Andrews v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 28 Cal. 3d 781, 623 P.2d 151 (Cal. 1981)