Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-23-01318/USCOURTS-caDC-23-01318-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
National Labor Relations Board
Petitioner
VTCU Corp.
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 27, 2024 Decided December 17, 2024

No. 23-1281

VTCU CORP.,

PETITIONER

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

RESPONDENT

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, 

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 1 of 17
2

Assistant General Counsel, and Usha Dheenan, Supervisory 

Attorney.

Before: RAO and CHILDS, 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. 

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 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 outcomedeterminative 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.

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 3 of 17
4

I. BACKGROUND

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 

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 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. 

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 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. 

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 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 

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 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,

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 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 

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 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). 

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 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)).

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 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 reasonabledoubt 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 threeweek 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 

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 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-RC261667, 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.

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 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 

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 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, CASEHANDLING 

MANUAL, PART TWO, REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS

§ 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.

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 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 possibledisenfranchisement 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)).

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 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 possibledisenfranchisement 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.

USCA Case #23-1318 Document #2089868 Filed: 12/17/2024 Page 17 of 17