Opinion ID: 578010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Actions of the Board's Agents

Text: 7 Bryant alleges three instances in which the actions of Board agents created an appearance of bias which affected the election. None of these allegations reveal actual or apparent bias. 8 Bryant first points to the Camarena chest-poking incident. Before the Board, Bryant presented the affidavit of an employee who stated that the incident occurred near a Board agent in the vicinity of ten other employees. These allegations do not reveal bias. Bryant offered no evidence that the ten observed the chest-poking incident or that the Board agent knew or approved of the incident. Moreover, the incident participants stated that Camarena had spoken in a low voice. Bryant's failure to present evidence of bias is not excusable because Bryant was not barred from asking the ten employees whether they had observed the incident. See N.L.R.B. v. Carl Weisman & Sons, Inc., 849 F.2d 449, 452 n. 5 (9th Cir.1988). 9 Next, Bryant alleges that the Board agents permitted observers to leave the voting area during the election. However, Bryant's own witnesses stated that the observers left the area to go to the restroom or to pick up a paycheck and that, when this happened, one Board agent would accompany the observer and another Board agent would remain behind at the polls. None of the witnesses alleged that he or she witnessed any observers commit improper behavior. 10 Finally, Bryant alleges that observers were permitted to engage in campaigning during the election at the polls while the polls were open. In support of this allegation, Bryant offered a company observer's statement to the effect that during the election, company and Union observers conversed among themselves when no voters were in the polling area. According to Bryant's own allegations, no voters were present and thus the election was not affected.