The parties disagree over where and under what circumstances employees should be permitted to wear uniform cargo shorts.

   The Union proposes that the Employer maintain the status quo by allowing "legacy" Customs Inspectors, Canine Enforcement Officers, and any other uniformed legacy Customs officer to be permitted to wear cargo shorts in all Class 3 environments.^3/ "[R]etention of the status quo would enable employees to address the extreme heat and humidity that exists at most, if not all, ports-of-entry," whether it be North Dakota, Maryland or Southern Florida. Contrary to the Employer’s contention that cargo shorts do not project a professional image, "at least 49 law enforcement agencies have not found that professionalism is compromised"; and it provides "no evidence of on-the-job injuries related to shorts," or an "analysis comparing injuries where shorts are allowed and prohibited." Further, the current practice "would not, and has not, adversely impacted their ability to meet the [Employer’s] mission." The Employer’s proposal "is inherently disparate since it arbitrarily limits the shorts option for some Officers but not others"; hence, the Employer’s objective of a consistent policy on uniforms is simply not achieved. Moreover, permitting cargo shorts would not "disrupt the workforce and distract" employees from performing anti-terrorism work efforts, law enforcement, safety and other agency mission objectives. In summary, CBP has had seven years to collect, analyze and provide evidence to support its arguments that the agency’s mission would be impeded, but has "failed to do so."

2. The Employer’s Position

   The Employer proposes that cargo shorts be an authorized trouser option in the Class 3 confined cargo environment only at the Southwest border locations, South Florida, and Puerto Rico. This is in accordance with the Employer’s efforts "to implement a consistent uniform policy for all inspectional personnel." It is also consistent with the policy that two other unions representing CBP employees agreed to in the fall of 2004,^4/ and would assist the Employer in "maintaining its policy of presenting a more consistent, law enforcement image." Moreover, the proposal "gives consideration to and creates preventive measures for extreme circumstances that would require diversion from the policy." It safeguards employees from "increased potential injury/terminal disease/death by keeping their vulnerable body parts from exposure to scrapes, cuts, and sun damage." When given the option, the majority of employees would "prefer" to keep their legs covered due to the nature of their work. The Union’s proposal, on the other hand, should not be adopted because it "would hinder the [Employer’s] efforts to unify its workforce and integrate its functions." It would also preclude CBP from establishing a "clear and consistent" policy to ensure "uniformity and ease of identification of law enforcement personnel."

   Having carefully reviewed the arguments and evidence presented by the parties to support their positions, we find that the Union’s proposal is the better choice for resolving their impasse. In our view, the Employer has not demonstrated how permitting CBP employees to wear cargo shorts in all Class 3 environments would preclude it from presenting a more consistent, professional law enforcement appearance or compromise its ability to meet its mission. For this reason, we shall order the adoption of the Union’s proposal.

ORDER

   Pursuant to the authority vested in it by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7119, and because of the failure of the parties to resolve their dispute during the course of the proceedings instituted under the Panel’s regulations, 5 C.F.R. §2471.6(a)(2), the Federal Service Impasses Panel, under 5 C.F.R. § 2471.11(a) of it regulations, hereby orders the parties to adopt the following:

   The parties shall adopt the Union’s proposal.