{shortcode-ce13bef8cb97fec5e9884b5bf0fc944c09ebcdc5}
The union representing Harvard’s police officers accused the University of withholding the report from an investigation of a dispute between two officers, making their first public arguments in front of the National Labor Relations Board since the complaint was filed last year.
The Harvard University Police Association’s complaint stems from a dispute last April between HUPD Captain John F. Fulkerson and former detective Kelsey L. Whelihan over the handling of a reported sexual assault between a Harvard undergraduate and non-student. After she said that Fulkerson mishandled the sexual assault case, Whelihan left the department this March.
The University launched an investigation into the procedural handling of the response after the officers’ dispute — contracting investigators from the Ed Davis Company, a Boston-based private security firm, to compile the report.
But when the HUPA requested a copy of the report in October, the University refused.
The HUPA’s NLRB complaint accuses Harvard of “failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith” by refusing to provide the report from the investigation, according to an unredacted copy obtained by The Crimson.
The complaint asks the NLRB to require Harvard to provide the union with the full report, and lawyers for the HUPA argued that it was a “fairly straightforward case” in the Tuesday hearing.
Zachary See, the University’s associate director of the Office of Labor and Employee Relations, claimed that the union’s requests were too broad. See asked HUPA to provide a more specific reason for requesting the report in March, but was unsatisfied with the union’s answer. According to See, the union provided “a reiteration of the initial broad request.”
The HUPA argued that they needed the report “to ensure Detective Whelihan’s current and prior rights in the matter are protected,” according to a March email from HUPA’s labor representative Alan J. McDonald. Whelihan is no longer a HUPA member.
See also argued that the union was not entitled to the full report because many of the details were confidential due to the reported sexual assault. He claimed the HUPA did not provide sufficient justification for his office to disclose confidential information.
“There was no confidentiality agreement that would have sufficed for this,” See said.
Joseph P. McConnell, a labor lawyer representing Harvard, supported the claim — arguing that Harvard did not have to furnish a copy of the report because its sensitivity outweighed its relevance to the union. Whelihan was a member of the HUPA at the time, but has since resigned from HUPD. Fulkerson, a commanding officer, is not a union member.
“The scales tilt in favor of confidentiality in a case like this, your honor,” McConnell said in the Tuesday hearing.
Still, HUPA intends to move forward with the case — despite not representing Whelihan or Fulkerson. The union argued that obtaining the report is still necessary, citing that it may contain comments on the performance of union members that they may need in the future.
Spokespeople for the HUPA and HUPD did not respond to requests for comment.
Though the judge did not issue a ruling on Tuesday, he requested briefs from both parties by mid-October, and will likely make a ruling in the weeks after. Either party can decide to appeal the judge’s final decision to the NLRB — but the wait could be long, since the Board currently lacks a quorum to issue decisions.
—Staff writer Megan L. Blonigen can be reached at megan.blonigen@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X at @MeganBlonigen.
—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at amann.mahajan@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.
—Staff writer Laurel M. Shugart can be reached at laurel.shugart@thecrimson.com. Follow them on X @laurelmshugart.
