On March 11, 2020, Muriel Bowser, mayor of Washington, D.C., declared a public health emergency. On August 10, 2021, she issued Mayor’s Order 2021-099, requiring District employees to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination. The D.C. Police Union and the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department engaged in impact and effects bargaining, resulting in an executive order allowing unvaccinated employees to undergo weekly testing instead.
On December 20, 2021, Mayor Bowser issued Mayor’s Order 2021-147, directing the development of a plan to remove the testing option. The order also stated the District would “engage labor partners” on setting vaccination deadlines. The next day, the Union sent the Department a request for information, seeking data and documents related to the proposed COVID-19 policies.
On January 24, 2022, the District’s Office of Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining (OLRCB) issued a memo stating all employees must submit proof of vaccination by February 15, 2022. On January 26, the Union reiterated its information request and demanded bargaining over the implementation of the mandate. That same day, the Department issued teletypes ordering compliance with the vaccination requirement. On January 27, both the Department and OLRCB informed the Union they had no obligation or intention to bargain over the mandate. The Department’s response to the information request provided only a single previously published executive order.
The Union filed an unfair labor practice complaint on January 28, 2022. The D.C. Public Employee Relations Board administratively dismissed the complaint in May 2022. The Union successfully petitioned the D.C. Superior Court to reverse and remand the dismissal. On remand, the parties agreed no factual hearing was needed and submitted the case to the Board on briefs.
The Board rejected the Department’s argument that the case was moot because the vaccine mandate had been rescinded. It distinguished a recent D.C. Court of Appeals case that found a negotiability appeal over vaccine rules was moot. The Board held that an unfair labor practice complaint based on a past refusal to bargain is not automatically rendered moot when the underlying policy expires, as the requested remedies could still provide relief.
The Board found that the Department violated the Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act. It is well established that even when a core management decision is non-negotiable, an employer must bargain over the impact and effects of implementing that decision upon a timely union demand. A categorical refusal to engage in such bargaining is unlawful. The Board held the Department committed unfair labor practices by issuing a blanket refusal to bargain and by failing to provide adequate responses to the Union’s information request.
The Board ordered the Department to cease and desist from refusing to bargain over the impact and effects of management policies and from refusing to provide adequate responses to information requests. The Department must post a notice of the violations at its facilities for 30 days. The Board declined the Union’s request to overturn a prior PERB negotiability opinion, stating it was beyond the scope of the present unfair labor practice case. The Board also denied the Union’s request for attorney fees and litigation costs, finding the legal criteria for such an award were not met.
In the Matter of D.C. Police Union, Lodge #2, PERB Case No. 22-U-08 (RO) (D.C. PERB Sept. 18, 2025).