Vtcu Corp . v. National Labor Relations Board

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued September 27, 2024 Decided December 17, 2024
No. 23-1281
VTCU C ORP .,
P ETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR R ELATIONS B OARD ,
R ESPONDENT
Consolidated with 23-1318
On Petition for Review and Cross-Application
for Enforcement of an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board
Andrew S. Goldberg argued the cause and filed the briefs
for petitioner.
Barbara A. Sheehy, Attorney, National Labor Relations
Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief
were Jennifer A. Abruzzo, General Counsel, Ruth E. Burdick,
Deputy Associate General Counsel, David Habenstreit,

-- 1 of 17 --

2
Assistant General Counsel, and Usha Dheenan, Supervisory
Attorney.
Before: R AO and C HILDS , Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS ,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge
EDWARDS .
EDWARDS , Senior Circuit Judge: Petitioner VTCU Corp.
(“VTCU”), a manufacturer of electrical transformers,
challenges the results of a mail ballot representation election
conducted by the National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or
“NLRB”). The International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 302 (“Union”) prevailed by 21 votes in the election.
VTCU objected to the results, claiming that the Board’s Region
27 Office and the Union had engaged in misconduct during the
election. Specifically, VTCU alleged that the Regional Office,
inter alia, had not afforded sufficient time for employees to
vote, failed to provide ballots to several eligible voters, and
counted void ballots. VTCU also claimed that Union agents
had threatened and intimidated employees. VTCU requested
that the election be overturned or, in the alternative, that the
Regional Director hold an evidentiary hearing.
The Regional Director found no merit in VTCU’s claims,
overruled the objections without a hearing, and certified the
Union as the employees’ exclusive bargaining representative.
The Regional Director also found that many of VTCU’s
objections were untimely, unsupported, or refuted by the facts
uncovered by an administrative investigation conducted by the
Regional Director. In addition, the Regional Director
concluded that the Regional Office’s conduct comported with
the Board’s Casehandling Manual, the parties’ Stipulated
Election Agreement (“Agreement”), and Board precedent.

-- 2 of 17 --

3
After the Board denied VTCU’s request for review of the
Regional Director’s decision, VTCU refused to bargain with
the Union. The Board’s General Counsel then issued a
complaint alleging that VTCU’s refusal to bargain violated the
National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 151 et seq. In its review of the matter, the Board concluded
that VTCU had indeed committed unfair labor practices in
violation of sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C.
§ 158(a)(1), (5), and ordered VTCU to recognize and bargain
with the Union. See VTCU Corp., 372 N.L.R.B. No. 148, slip
op. at 1-2 (Sept. 28, 2023). VTCU now petitions for review of
the Board’s order and the Board cross-applies for enforcement.
In its petition for review, VTCU argues that the Board
erred in rejecting its objections by deviating from Board
precedent. VTCU principally contends that the Union’s
misconduct and the Regional Office’s mishandling of the
election warranted a rerun election because an outcome-
determinative number of voters were possibly disenfranchised.
VTCU further claims that the Board erred in denying its
requests for an extension of time to submit an offer of proof
and for a post-election hearing.
We find no merit in VTCU’s claims. The Board’s decision
is consistent with applicable law and supported by established
precedent. Furthermore, we lack jurisdiction to consider a
number of VTCU’s claims due to its failure to raise these
matters with the Board during the representation proceedings.
We also find that VTCU forfeited other objections by failing to
properly raise the issues in its opening brief to this court.
Therefore, we deny VTCU’s petition for review and grant the
Board’s cross-petition for enforcement of its order.

-- 3 of 17 --

4
I. B ACKGROUND
A. Statutory Background
The National Labor Relations Act safeguards the rights of
employees to “self-organiz[e], to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, [and] to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing.” 29 U.S.C. § 157. To
this end, the Act prohibits employers from “interfer[ing] with,
restrain[ing], or coerc[ing] employees in the exercise of” those
rights. Id. § 158(a)(1). It also forbids employers from refusing
to bargain collectively with their employees’ representatives.
Id. § 158(a)(5). Section 9(a) of the Act further provides that
representatives selected for collective bargaining purposes “by
the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such
purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the
employees in such unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining.” Id. § 159(a).
B. Factual and Procedural Background
VTCU operates a production plant for the manufacture of
electrical transformers in Pocatello, Idaho. On August 1, 2022,
the Union filed a petition with the Board to represent a
bargaining unit of full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees at the Pocatello facility. Pursuant
to an Agreement, VTCU and the Union waived their rights to
a pre-election hearing and consented to a mail ballot election
to be conducted from September 7 to September 28. The
Agreement also directed voters who had not received their
ballots by September 14, or who otherwise needed a duplicate
ballot, to contact the Regional Office to arrange for the mailing
of another ballot. Further, the Agreement required VTCU to
post copies of the Notice of Election at the Pocatello facility.
The Notice of Election likewise instructed employees to

-- 4 of 17 --

5
contact the Regional Office or the Board’s national hotline if
they had not received a ballot by September 14.
There were 186 employees who were eligible to vote in the
election. The Union won by a vote of 66 to 45. There were
seven void ballots and five challenged ballots.
On October 5, VTCU filed objections to the election with
the Regional Director, claiming that the Union had destroyed
the requisite laboratory conditions for a fair election and that
the Regional Office had mishandled the election. Specifically,
in its first and second objections, VTCU alleged that the Union
threatened employees regarding their immigration status so as
to coerce them to vote for the Union or dissuade them from
voting. In its third objection, VTCU contended that the
Regional Office: (a) conducted an election with inadequate
time for voters to request duplicate ballots, in light of
widespread postal service delays; (b) failed to mail ballots to
25 eligible voters; (c) mailed ballots to employees not on the
voter list; (d) failed to respond to telephonic requests from
employees for original and duplicate ballots; (e) counted
legally void ballots; and (f) counted ballots of employees who
claimed that they never received ballots or voted. VTCU thus
argued that the election results should be overturned.
Alternatively, it requested an evidentiary hearing on its
objections.
On that same day, VTCU requested an extension of time to
October 12 to submit an offer of proof in support of its
objections. After the Regional Director granted this extension,
VTCU requested a second extension to October 14, but the
Regional Director denied this request. As a result, VTCU filed
an initial offer of proof on October 12 and then an unauthorized
supplemental offer of proof on October 14.

-- 5 of 17 --

6
VTCU’s initial offer of proof provided the names of 17
employees (actually, the number is 16, not 17, because VTCU
double-counts one voter) who claimed that they never received
or did not timely receive a ballot, two employees who asserted
that they called the Regional Office to request ballots but never
received a response, and four employees who stated that their
ballots were not counted. In addition, VTCU listed the names
of six voters whose ballots were counted, despite an alleged
lack of a signature on their ballot envelopes. The offer of proof
also included new allegations that Union agents intimidated
and harassed three employees by, inter alia, refusing to leave
an employee’s property, videotaping an employee, sending
offensive text messages to an employee, and repeatedly
offering to assist an employee with casting a ballot.
In December 2022, the Regional Director overruled
VTCU’s objections and certified the Union as the employees’
exclusive bargaining representative. First, she determined that
VTCU’s evidence was insufficient to warrant an evidentiary
hearing. As to Objections 1 and 2, she concluded that the record
was devoid of evidence to support VTCU’s claim that the
Union threatened employees regarding their immigration
status. She found that the other allegations concerning the
Union’s misconduct were untimely because they were not first
raised in the objections and VTCU failed to show that the
evidence was newly discovered and previously unavailable.
As to Objection 3(a), the Regional Director pointed out that
the parties had consented to a three-week polling period and
concluded that this had afforded sufficient time to conduct a
fair election. The Regional Director rejected as meritless
VTCU’s claim that a 66 percent voter turnout or a late-arriving
ballot signified that employees lacked an adequate opportunity
to vote.

-- 6 of 17 --

7
For Objection 3(b), the Regional Director dismissed
VTCU’s claim that the Regional Office had neglected to mail
ballots to 16 eligible voters. In particular, she explained that
their investigation revealed that one employee had actually
voted and that the other employees had not contacted the
Regional Office to request a duplicate ballot.
As to Objection 3(c), the Regional Director determined that
the Regional Office’s mailing of ballots to four voters not on
the voter list conformed with the Board’s Casehandling
Manual, which requires the Regional Office to send ballots to
prospective voters who request them. In any event, she noted
that those ballots were never counted due to lateness or other
challenges.
With respect to Objection 3(d), the Regional Director
concluded that the Regional Office did not fail to respond to
telephonic requests for duplicate ballots from two employees.
Instead, she found that the investigation showed that Voter No.
185 timely voted, though his ballot was challenged by the
Board Agent for separate eligibility reasons, and that there
were no records of Voter No. 46 contacting the Regional
Office. Further, she observed that any failure to provide Voter
No. 46 with a duplicate ballot would not have been outcome
determinative given the Union’s margin of victory.
As to Objection 3(e), the Regional Director found that the
Regional Office complied with the Board’s Casehandling
Manual by counting the six ballots with printed signatures,
pursuant to the parties’ agreement to count them. For Objection
3(f), she determined that VTCU offered no evidence that the
Regional Office counted ballots of employees who claimed that
they never voted. Finally, she rejected VTCU’s claim that the
Regional Office failed to count the ballots of four voters, noting
that this objection was untimely and that only one of the four

-- 7 of 17 --

8
voters had returned a ballot, which the Regional Director
determined was ultimately counted.
The Board then denied VTCU’s request for review of the
Regional Director’s decision and certification. In doing so, the
Board determined that even if the Regional Office erroneously
counted six void ballots with printed rather than cursive
signatures pursuant to Objection 3(e), this error was
nondeterminative. Significantly, in its request for Board
review, VTCU did not challenge the Regional Director’s
dismissal of Objections 3(c) and 3(f), denial of VTCU’s request
for a post-election hearing, or denial of VTCU’s second request
for an extension of time to file an offer of proof.
Following the issuance of the Board’s decision, VTCU
refused to bargain with the Union. Consequently, the Union
filed unfair labor practice charges, and the Board’s General
Counsel issued a complaint charging VTCU with violations of
sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The Board, on a motion for
summary judgment, held that VTCU violated sections 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act and ordered VTCU to bargain with the
Union. VTCU Corp., slip op. at 1-2. VTCU then filed a petition
for review in this court, and the Board cross-applied for
enforcement of its order.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
“The Board’s discretion to assess the propriety and results
of representation elections is broad, and we will overturn a
Board decision to certify an election only in the ‘rarest of
circumstances.’” Am. Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 992 F.3d 1129,
1140 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (quoting N. of Mkt. Senior Servs., Inc. v.
NLRB, 204 F.3d 1163, 1167 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). Accordingly,

-- 8 of 17 --

9
we merely inquire ‘‘whether the Board has followed
appropriate and fair procedures” and has ‘‘reached a rational
conclusion in addressing any objections to the election.”
Longmont United Hosp. v. NLRB, 70 F.4th 573, 578-79 (D.C.
Cir. 2023) (quoting PruittHealth-Va. Park, LLC v. NLRB, 888
F.3d 1285, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 2018)). “We will uphold the
Board’s decisions if they are not arbitrary, capricious, or
grounded in legal error, and if substantial evidence supports the
Board’s factual findings.’’ Id. at 578 (quoting RadNet Mgmt.,
Inc. v. NLRB, 992 F.3d 1114, 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2021)).
Moreover, “[w]e review the Board’s grant of summary
judgment in the enforcement proceeding for abuse of
discretion.” Id. at 579 (citations omitted).
B. Alleged Union Misconduct (Objections 1 and 2)
VTCU argues that the Board erred in declining to find that
Union agents engaged in coercive and threatening behavior
toward voters. In support of this claim, VTCU relies on its
proffered evidence that individuals – allegedly affiliated with
the Union – harassed or threatened three employees. We
conclude that the Board’s rejection of this evidence is
supported by the record and consistent with Board precedent.
As an initial matter, we disregard VTCU’s original
objection made to the Regional Director that Union agents
threatened employees regarding their immigration status. It is
well settled that a party must raise an objection with the Board
in its request for “Board review of the underlying
representation proceedings in order to preserve the issues for
consideration in subsequent unfair labor practice proceedings.”
PruittHealth, 888 F.3d at 1295 (first citing 29 C.F.R.
§ 102.67(g); and then citing Matson Terminals, Inc., 361
NLRB No. 50, slip op. at 1 n.1 (Sept. 26, 2014)). Otherwise,
we lack jurisdiction to evaluate that claim and the objection is

-- 9 of 17 --

10
considered waived. Id. at 1295-96; see 29 C.F.R.
§ 102.46(a)(1)(ii) (“Any exception to a ruling, finding,
conclusion, or recommendation which is not specifically urged
will be deemed to have been waived.”); see also 29 U.S.C.
§ 160(e) (“No objection that has not been urged before the
Board, its member, agent, or agency, shall be considered by the
court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall
be excused because of extraordinary circumstances.”). Put
differently, the NLRA limits our jurisdiction to “objections
made before the Board [that] were adequate to put the Board
on notice that the issue might be pursued on appeal.” United
Food & Com. Workers Union, Local 400 v. NLRB, 989 F.3d
1034, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (quoting Consol. Freightways v.
NLRB, 669 F.2d 790, 794 (D.C. Cir. 1981)).
Here, VTCU failed to raise any objection involving
immigration-related threats in its request for Board review. Nor
did VTCU otherwise properly challenge the Regional
Director’s determination that this objection lacked any
evidentiary support. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider
this objection.
The Regional Director found that VTCU’s allegations of
non-immigration-related threats raised new objections that had
not been raised in VTCU’s initial objections. Therefore, the
Board properly concluded that the objections were untimely.
An objecting party has five business days following the tally of
ballots to file objections with the Regional Director. 29 C.F.R.
§ 102.69(a)(8). And under Board precedent, the Board may not
consider an employer’s allegations of misconduct in its offer of
proof that are unrelated to its timely filed objections, unless the
employer shows by clear and convincing proof that this
evidence is newly discovered and previously unavailable. See,
e.g., John W. Galbreath & Co., 288 N.L.R.B. 876, 878 (1988);
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., 271 N.L.R.B. 1008, 1008 (1984).

-- 10 of 17 --

11
In this case, VTCU’s initial objections to the Regional
Director following the election included a claim that Union
agents threatened employees regarding their immigration
status. However, VTCU’s subsequent offer of proof to the
Regional Director and request for review to the Board did not
raise these immigration-related threats. Rather, VTCU argued
that Union agents intimidated and harassed three employees
by, inter alia, refusing to leave an employee’s property and
sending him vulgar text messages, videotaping another
employee at her home, and offering to help another employee
cast her ballot. While those allegations concerned threatening
conduct by Union agents, the evidence was totally unrelated to
any threats concerning employees’ immigration status. And the
allegations regarding non-immigration threats had never been
raised by VTCU in its timely filed objections. Tellingly, the
record is bereft of proof that the purported evidence regarding
non-immigration threats was previously unavailable and newly
discovered so as to justify VTCU’s inclusion of these claims in
its offer of proof to the Regional Director and request for
review to the Board. The Board, therefore, properly declined to
credit any of the foregoing objections.
VTCU has also forfeited pressing any of these claims with
this court. VTCU waited until its reply brief to this court to
argue that the purported evidence regarding Union threats was
properly raised in its initial objections and offer of proof to the
Regional Director and then presented to the Board in its request
for review, or that special circumstances excused the untimely
submission of its claims to the Board. We will therefore not
address these claims. See Shands v. Comm’r of Internal
Revenue, 111 F.4th 1, 9 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (“[A]rguments raised
for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited.” (citation
omitted)).

-- 11 of 17 --

12
C. Alleged Regional Office Misconduct (Objection 3)
VTCU next contends that the Board erred in rejecting its
objections alleging that the Regional Office mishandled the
election. In addressing VTCU’s claims, the Regional Director
applied the reasonable-doubt test. Under this standard, to
invalidate an election based on alleged misconduct by a
Regional Office, a party must show that “the alleged
irregularit[ies] raised ‘a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and
validity of the election.’” GHG Mgmt. LLC v. NLRB, 106 F.4th
1166, 1172 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (quoting Guardsmark, LLC, 363
N.L.R.B. 931, 934 (2016)). And it requires a “showing of
prejudicial,” not merely “speculative” harm. Id. (quoting
Guardsmark, 363 N.L.R.B. at 934). Before the Board, VTCU
never challenged the Regional Director’s use of the reasonable-
doubt test. We find no error in the Regional Director’s
application of the standard.
1. Alleged Inadequate Polling Period (Objection 3(a))
VTCU asserts that the Board erred in limiting the polling
period to three weeks. It claims that known postal service
delays in Pocatello and problems with mail ballot elections
rendered this polling period insufficient for voters to timely
receive and send their ballots. As a result of these alleged
issues, VTCU contends that 16 eligible voters were possibly
disenfranchised because their ballots never arrived. VTCU also
points to other Board elections with higher voter turnout or
longer polling periods to demonstrate the flaws of the three-
week polling period. We find no merit in these arguments.
First, it is noteworthy that the parties consented to a mail
ballot election with a three-week polling period. Our precedent
makes clear that, absent changed or unusual circumstances, the
Board’s compliance with a stipulated election agreement is not

-- 12 of 17 --

13
an election irregularity caused by the Board’s conduct. See
NCR Corp. v. NLRB, 840 F.3d 838, 842-43 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
(holding that the Board’s counting of ballots received by the
stipulated deadline was not an irregularity); see also Comput.
Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. NLRB, 282 F.3d 849, 852 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
(noting that stipulations are “binding on the parties absent a
showing of ‘changed or unusual circumstances’” (citations
omitted)). And VTCU has not attempted to show such
circumstances.
Furthermore, under Board precedent, the parties’
stipulation to an election by mail ballot and a particular polling
period bars VTCU from challenging the election on those
grounds. See Coll. Bound Dorchester, Inc., Case No. 01-RC-
261667, 2021 WL 2657318, at *1 n.1 (N.L.R.B. June 25, 2021)
(determining that an employer waived its right to object to a
mail ballot election by stipulating to permitting the Regional
Director to decide between a manual or mail ballot election);
see also Aaron Med. Transp., Inc., Case No. 22-RC-070888,
2013 WL 6673598, at *1 n.1 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 18, 2013)
(rejecting a challenge to the Board’s adherence to stipulated
polling hours); Cmty. Care Sys. Inc., 284 N.L.R.B. 1147, 1147
(1987) (“[W]here the election has gone ahead pursuant to the
parties’ stipulation … and it does not appear that the election
arrangements were such that employees were prevented from
voting, we see no basis for permitting the unsuccessful party to
attack the election on the basis of a [stipulated] condition ….”).
Further, it is well established under Board precedent that
low turnout is an inadequate ground to overturn an election,
without other evidence that eligible voters were deprived of an
adequate opportunity to vote. See CenTrio Energy S. LLC, 371
N.L.R.B. No. 94, slip op. at 1 (Apr. 28, 2022). And as discussed
below, VTCU has failed to provide such evidence.

-- 13 of 17 --

14
2. Alleged Failure to Provide Ballots to Eligible Voters
(Objection 3(b))
VTCU also claims that the election should be overturned
because 16 (not 17) eligible voters did not receive or did not
timely receive ballots due to postal service delays. The Board
found otherwise. The record and established precedent support
the Board’s decision rejecting VTCU’s claims.
Our decision in Antelope Valley Bus Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 275
F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2002), is instructive. In that case, we
rejected an employer’s objection that four employees failed to
receive mail ballots, finding that those employees neglected to
request replacement ballots as provided in the stipulated
election agreement and notice of election. Id. at 1091-94. Thus,
we held that the employees had adequate notice and
opportunity to vote because the Board provided those
“employees who failed to receive mail ballots with the
opportunity to vote by replacement ballot.” Id. at 1094.
Here, the Agreement and Notice of Election directed
employees to contact the Board by September 14 if they had
not received their original ballot. Notably, VTCU does not
claim that employees did not view or receive the Notice of
Election. Nor does it offer evidence to show that any of the 16
employees contacted the Regional Office to request a
replacement ballot. To the contrary, the Regional Director
explained that the administrative investigation revealed that the
Regional Office mailed original ballots to the cited employees,
that one of the employees voted, and that there were no records
of the other employees contacting the Regional Office for
duplicate ballots. Assuming arguendo that those employees did
not receive their original ballots, we nonetheless find that they
had adequate notice and opportunity to vote because they could
have requested a replacement ballot. And nothing in the record

-- 14 of 17 --

15
indicates that they did so. The Board’s decision in this case
comports with precedent and is supported by substantial
evidence.
3. Alleged Counting of Six Void Ballots (Objection 3(e))
VTCU next argues that the Board erred in rejecting its
claim that the Regional Office counted six legally void ballots.
It contends that the ballots were void because the voters printed
their names on the envelope containing the ballots. We find that
this argument is unavailing and is belied by the record.
Board precedent establishes that ballots returned with no
signatures or with printed names on the return envelopes are
void. Longmont, 70 F.4th at 579. This rule has no application
here. First, VTCU does not dispute the Regional Director’s
findings that the six ballots bore printed signatures, nor that it
failed to claim that the voters’ printed signatures were not their
actual signatures. Second, the parties agreed to count the
ballots. Therefore, there is no basis for finding any error in the
Board’s judgment.
Although VTCU undisputedly agreed to count the ballots,
it now asserts that this decision should not have been delegated
to the parties. This argument is meritless. To be sure, Board
guidance provides that a Board agent should void a ballot if the
parties cannot agree on whether a name is printed, and the agent
determines that the name is printed. NLRB, C ASEHANDLING
M ANUAL, P ART TWO , R EPRESENTATION P ROCEEDINGS
§ 11336.5(c) (2023). However, there is no such directive that
the Board must void a ballot if the Board and parties agree that
a name is actually a printed signature and consent to count the
ballot. VTCU identifies no authority to the contrary.

-- 15 of 17 --

16
4. Alleged Provision of Ballots to Four Non-Eligible
Voters (Objection 3(c)), Alleged Failure to Respond to
Telephonic Requests for Duplicate Ballots from Two
Employees (Objection 3(d)), and Alleged Counting of
Ballots of Employees Who Claimed They Did Not Vote
(Objection 3(f))
VTCU has forfeited its remaining objections regarding
alleged Regional Office misconduct. As to Objection 3(d),
VTCU failed to present any coherent argument regarding this
objection in its briefs, other than perfunctorily mentioning that
two voters did not receive return calls or duplicate ballots from
the Regional Office. See Khine v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
943 F.3d 959, 967-68 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“[I]t is not enough
merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal
way.” (citation omitted)). Similarly, as to Objections 3(c) and
3(f), these objections were not addressed at all in VTCU’s
opening brief and are likewise forfeited. See Shands, 111 F.4th
at 9.
We also lack jurisdiction over Objections 3(c) and 3(f)
because VTCU failed to include these objections in its request
for Board review. See PruittHealth, 888 F.3d at 1295-96.
5. Possible-Disenfranchisement Test
In an effort to avoid rejection of its objections under the
reasonable-doubt test, VTCU argues that the possible-
disenfranchisement test should govern its objections relating to
the Regional Office. Under that test, “an election will be set
aside if the objecting party shows that the number of voters
possibly disenfranchised by an election irregularity is sufficient
to affect the election outcome.” GHG Mgmt., 106 F.4th at 1172
(quoting Garda World Sec. Corp., 356 N.L.R.B. 594, 594
(2011)).

-- 16 of 17 --

17
However, VTCU waived this challenge to the use of the
reasonable-doubt test due to its failure to raise this issue before
the Board. See PruittHealth, 888 F.3d at 1295-96. Regardless,
the outcome in this case would not change under the possible-
disenfranchisement test. Even if we credit the five challenged
ballots and six allegedly void ballots (Objection 3(e)), the
Union would still prevail by 10 votes. In addition, the
remaining objections involving the Regional Office would still
be foreclosed because of forfeiture (Objection 3(d)), the Act’s
jurisdictional bar (Objections 3(c) and 3(f)), and clear
precedent establishing that there were no election irregularities
caused by the Board’s conduct (Objections 3(a) and 3(b)).
D. Request for a Post-Election Hearing and Second Request
for an Extension of Time to Submit an Offer of Proof
Finally, VTCU challenges the Board’s denial of its request
for a post-election hearing and second request for an extension
of time to submit an offer of proof in support of its objections.
However, we are jurisdictionally barred from considering these
claims because VTCU failed to raise these issues in its request
for Board review. See PruittHealth, 888 F.3d at 1295-96.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we deny VTCU’s petition
for review and grant the Board’s cross-application for
enforcement of its order.
So ordered.

-- 17 of 17 --