Finally, no Air Force bases contacted by the Employer reported problems with, or objections to, prohibiting the use of smokeless tobacco at the workplace. In this regard, it surveyed the bargaining unit in January 1999 regarding smokeless tobacco use. It is well established that in Panel proceedings the party attempting to change the status quo generally bears the burden of demonstrating why its proposal should be adopted. There is no credible evidence in the record, however, that the use of smokeless tobacco at Dover Air Force Base, either in the workplace, in Air Force vehicles, or on Air Force or contract aircraft, has presented a health hazard to anyone but the users of the product. With respect to whether the Panel should adopt the Employer's proposal because it would discourage smokeless tobacco users from continuing to harm themselves, there is no question that the ill effects of tobacco use, particularly smokeless tobacco, are well documented.
Tobacco is a highly addictive substance in any form.
In our view, limiting access to smokeless tobacco is just as likely to encourage users to switch to cigarettes or cigars during the workday to satisfy their craving for nicotine as it is to reduce their number. In any event, placing smokers and smokeless tobacco users in the same designated tobacco use areas would expose the latter to second-hand smoke, and undermine the Employer's stated interest in protecting employees' health. For these reasons, we conclude that the Employer has failed to demonstrate the need for its proposal. By direction of the Panel. Ms. Walsh left the Panel's staff before the case was presented at its next scheduled meeting.