In a significant ruling for labor rights, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has found Harvard University guilty of violating federal labor law. The prestigious institution unlawfully refused to provide a crucial investigative report to the union representing its campus police officers.
The Core of the Dispute and the NLRB's Verdict
The conflict centered on a report compiled by the Ed Davis Company, a third-party security firm hired by Harvard. This investigation looked into a dispute in April 2024 between HUPD Captain John F. Fulkerson and former detective Kelsey L. Whelihan. The disagreement was over the handling of a sensitive sexual assault case involving a Harvard student.
The Harvard University Police Association (HUPA), which represents rank-and-file officers, first requested the report in January 2024. The union stated it needed the document to protect Detective Whelihan's rights and to fulfill its duty of representing members in complaints involving them. Harvard repeatedly denied these requests, labeling the report a confidential internal document.
University's Refusal and the Union's Legal Challenge
Despite further requests in March and October 2024, Harvard stood firm. Zachary See, associate director of Harvard’s Office of Labor and Employee Relations, asserted in March that no confidentiality agreement could permit union access. This led the HUPA to file a formal complaint with the NLRB in November 2024, accusing the university of failing to bargain in good faith.
A hearing was scheduled for September 2025. Just before it, Harvard's lawyers offered a partial settlement, granting access to only one section of the report. The union rejected this limited offer. During the hearing, Harvard continued to argue for confidentiality.
Judge's Scathing Criticism and Final Order
Administrative judge Paul Bogas, in his decision issued on December 23, sided unequivocally with the union. He ruled that Harvard "utterly failed" to prove the report was confidential in a way that justified withholding it from the bargaining representative.
Judge Bogas was particularly critical of Harvard's sole witness, Zachary See, noting that See had not even read the report before denying the union's request. The judge likened this action to "a child who covers both ears and hums to avoid understanding an unwelcome communication."
Implications and Next Steps for Harvard
The NLRB ruling carries immediate and concrete consequences for Harvard University. The institution is now legally required to take two key actions:
- Provide the full investigative report to the Harvard University Police Association without further delay.
- Notify all union members that it violated federal labor laws by refusing to provide the necessary information.
As of the latest updates, neither Harvard nor the HUPA has commented on whether the report has been handed over following the ruling. This case sets a clear precedent, emphasizing that employers cannot use blanket claims of confidentiality to withhold information vital for a union's role in representing its members, even when dealing with sensitive internal investigations.
