Massachusetts Appeals Court Reaffirms the Nondelegable Authority of Heads of Massachusetts Police Departments to Assign and Deploy Their Officers
On October 13, 2026, the Massachusetts Appeals Court issued a decision reaffirming the Massachusetts doctrine that the heads of Massachusetts police departments have the nondelegable authority to assign and deploy their officers. The decision in Dep’t of State Police v. State Police Ass’n of Massachusetts, No. 25-P-321 (Oct. 13, 2026) upheld a Superior Court decision which had granted a request by the Department of State Police (“the Department”) to stay an arbitration proceeding brought by the State Police Association of Massachusetts (“the Union”). The arbitration challenged the authority of the Department’s Colonel to mandate overtime and prohibit time off during certain holiday events. The court concluded that this implicated a nondelegable, managerial right of the Colonel and therefore was not subject to arbitration or collective bargaining, regardless of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. While the case involves authority expressly granted to the Colonel under M.G.L. c. 22C, the Appeals Court applied a general public policy that has been applied repeatedly by the courts addressing several statutes that govern the powers of police chiefs and commissioners.
As explained by the Appeals Court, mandatory bargaining is not required where negotiating a public employer’s decision “would unduly impinge on a public employer’s freedom to perform its public functions . . . .” The nondelegability doctrine instead reserves certain decisions to a public employer’s “sole discretion” when statute, tradition, or common sense indicates that doing so would “preserve accountability to the public in the performance of the essential functions of government.” Such nondelegable managerial rights “may not be bargained away.” Massachusetts courts have previously held on several occasions that the doctrine applies to public safety decisions by police chiefs or commissioners, especially where such decisions involve “policy judgements in the allocation and deployment of law enforcement resources,” such as decisions regarding staffing assignments.
The Appeals Court rejected the Union’s arguments and held that the nondelegability doctrine can apply to “broadly worded” Legislative grants so long as such statutory grants implicate core managerial mandates. The court added that, unless the granting statute is explicitly listed in M.G.L. c. 150E, § 7 (d) as subordinated to collective bargaining, a “public employer’s explicit statutory authority to perform its functions cannot be undermined by the terms of a CBA or subject to arbitration.”
The Department and Union had entered into a 1999 side letter of agreement that limited the Colonel’s staffing decisions regarding Patriots Day and July 4th Independence Day events. The letter also made those decisions subject to the collective bargaining agreement’s grievance procedures and arbitration. Following a grievance related to staffing assignments on July 4, 2022, the Union filed for arbitration. The Department sought a stay of the arbitration in Superior Court, arguing that the Colonel’s decision was not subject to arbitration.
Evaluating the Colonel’s authority under M. G. L. c. 22C, § 18 on appeal, the Appeals Court relied in part on Andover v. Andover Police Patrolmen’s Union, which had enforced as nondelegable the assignment authority granted to municipal police chiefs under another statute, M.G.L. c. 41, § 97A. In the case before it, the Appeals Court found that the authority granted under M.G.L. c. 22C, § 18 created a similar “specific managerial directive . . . implicat[ing] public safety”. Because M.G.L. c. 22C, § 18 is not explicitly listed in M.G.L. c. 150E, § 7 (d) and because the Colonel’s orders implicated nondelegable, managerial rights, the Appeals Court determined that these staffing decisions could not be limited by collective bargaining. Accordingly, it held that the side letter was ineffective to constrain the Colonel’s authority; that the Department had not agreed, and could not agree, to arbitrate the matter; and that the Department therefore was entitled to an order under M.G.L. c. 150C, § 2(b) permanently staying the arbitration.
We represent public employers in matters that involve managerial rights, nondelegable powers, and stays of arbitration. If you have questions regarding these issues or public sector labor law generally, please contact any of our attorneys.
This update is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.