Harvard violates federal labour law, finds NLRB: Authorities ordered to release police investigation report

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled that Harvard University violated federal labor law by refusing to provide the union representing Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) officers with a copy of an investigative report. The decision, issued on December 23 by administrative judge Paul Bogas, requires Harvard to immediately give the Harvard University Police Association (HUPA) the full report. The union represents the rank-and-file officers and had requested the report to fulfill its role as the employees’ exclusive bargaining representative.

How the dispute started

The conflict began in April 2024 between HUPD Captain John F. Fulkerson and former detective Kelsey L. Whelihan over the handling of a sexual assault case involving a Harvard student. To investigate, Harvard hired the Ed Davis Company, a third-party security firm. Investigators looked into “the interaction between Detective Whelihan and the supervisors in the conduct of the investigation of the student sexual assault,” according to court documents.

Union’s requests were denied

The HUPA first requested a copy of the report in January 2024, stating it was necessary to protect Whelihan’s rights and to ensure union members had access to reports of complaints involving them. Harvard denied the request, calling it a confidential internal document, and refused additional requests made in March and October 2024. Zachary See, associate director of Harvard’s Office of Labor and Employee Relations, said in March that no confidentiality agreement could allow the union access.

NLRB complaint and hearing

The union filed a complaint with the NLRB in November 2024, accusing Harvard of “failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith.” Lawyers for Harvard offered a partial settlement shortly before a September 2025 hearing, which would have given access to only one section of the report. The union rejected this offer.

At the hearing, the HUPA argued that the case was straightforward and the university should release the report. Harvard’s lawyers maintained the report was confidential. Judge Bogas ruled that Harvard “utterly failed” to prove this. He noted that the only witness called, See, had not read the report before denying it to the union, saying his actions “bring to mind a child who covers both ears and hums to avoid understanding an unwelcome communication.”

What happens next

Harvard must now provide the full investigative report to the HUPA and notify all union members that it violated federal labor laws. As of Tuesday, neither Harvard nor the HUPA had commented on whether the report had been handed over.

This ruling emphasizes that employers must provide unions with information necessary for their role in representing employees, even when the material comes from confidential internal investigations.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!