[ v34 p237 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 34 FLRA NO. 48

                    PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION





   			 January 12, 1990

     Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the
award of Arbitrator Jack Clarke. The Arbitrator denied the
grievance, which contested management's refusal to pay the
grievant overtime compensation.

     The Panama Area Metal Trades Council (the Union) filed an
exception to the Arbitrator's award under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the
Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's, Rules and Regulations.
The Panama Canal Commission (the Agency) filed an opposition to
the exception.

     For the reasons discussed below, the Union's exception is

II. Background

     The grievant is a time and leave clerk at the Agency. In
1987, July 4, was a Saturday and the Federal holiday was observed
on Friday, July 3. Prior to the holiday, the grievant submitted a
routing slip to her supervisor questioning whether she was to be
scheduled to work on Friday, July 3. If the grievant was
scheduled to work on the Federal holiday (July 3), she would
receive holiday additional compensation (HAC). 

     An "Overtime Request" form was prepared and approved for the
grievant. The work to be performed was described on the form as
follows: "To close out time cards for pay period #13. July
3--Friday--is a holiday." Arbitrator's Award at 5. The preprinted
word "Overtime" on the form was changed to "Holiday Addt. Comp."
which referred to holiday additional compensation. The following
was entered in the space provided for the date: "7/4/87". Id.

     After the form had been signed approving the request, the
grievant made a copy of the form for herself. A week before the
holiday, the grievant's supervisor returned the grievant's
routing slip to her with the following note: "Your HAC has been
approved . . . & you have seen it." Id. at 6.

     On Thursday, July 2, the grievant's supervisor was informed
that the "Overtime Request" form for the grievant identified the
date to be worked by the grievant as July 4 instead of July 3.
Consequently, the grievant's supervisor "asked the Grievant if
she was not coming to work on July 3. The Grievant replied that
that was what had been approved and that she was going to do so."
Id. After this conversation, the grievant's supervisor "overwrote
the 4 in '7/4/87' with a 3 thereby changing the information in
the date block to '7/3/83.'" Id. at 7. The grievant's supervisor
did not notify the grievant of the change.

     The grievant worked 8 hours on Friday, July 3. On Saturday,
July 4, the grievant reported to work and called her supervisor.
The grievant explained that she reported to work because July 4
was the date on the "Overtime Request" form. The grievant's
supervisor summarized the conversation she had with the grievant
on July 2 and stated that she had corrected the date and that the
grievant should go home. Id.

     The grievant requested payment of 2 hours of overtime
compensation for having reported to work as directed. When the
request was denied, the grievant filed a grievance that was
submitted to arbitration.

III. Arbitrator's Award

     The Arbitrator concluded that the evidence failed to
establish that the grievant was ordered to work on Saturday, July

     The Arbitrator noted that the only communications from
management to the grievant which could constitute instructions or
orders to work were (1) the grievant's routing slip
which was returned to her with her supervisor's notation, (2) the
"Overtime Request," and (3) the statement of the grievant's
supervisor to the grievant on July 2.

     The Arbitrator concluded that the grievant's supervisor said
nothing that could be reasonably construed as a direction to the
grievant to work on July 4. The Arbitrator also concluded that
the routing slip did not constitute an order to work on July 4
because the notation of the grievant's supervisor specifically
referred to holiday additional compensation, which could only be
worked on Friday, July 3.

     The Arbitrator also found that the "Overtime Request" form
did not constitute an order for or an approval of the grievant's
working on Saturday, July 4. The Arbitrator concluded that the
"Overtime Request" clearly related to holiday additional
compensation, which could only be worked on Friday, July 3.
Consequently, the Arbitrator determined that the grievant's
interpretation of the uncorrected request--as directing her to
work on Saturday, July 4 and not on Friday, July 3--was "simply
untenable." Arbitrator's Award at 18.

     The Arbitrator acknowledged that the grievant's supervisor
could have told ethe grievant of the error in the date of the
"Overtime Request" and that the request had been corrected.
However, the Arbitrator determined that in view of the grievant's
understanding expressed to her supervisor on July 2, there was no
reason to inform the grievant of the change. The Arbitrator found
that management agreed with the grievant's understanding of the
"Overtime Request" and amended it to conform to the grievant's

     For these reasons, the Arbitrator ruled that the Agency
correctly refused to compensate the grievant for Saturday, July
4. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

IV. Exception

     The Union contends that the Arbitrator's "award is unjust."
Union's Exception at 1. The Union argues that the award is unjust
by not finding that the grievant was ordered to work on July 4
when the date on the approved "Overtime Request" was July 4 and
the grievant was never notified of the change in the date to July
3. The Union also argues that there are numerous instances where
the evidence and testimony presented at the arbitration hearing
do not support the findings and the award of the Arbitrator. The
 Union further claims that the grievance should be
resolved in favor of the grievant because the grievant's
second-level supervisor gave false testimony under oath at the
arbitration hearing.

V. Opposition

     The Agency contends that the exception should be dismissed
because the exception was signed by the grievant and she did not
participate in the arbitration as a party. The Agency also
contends the exception provides no basis for finding the award

VI. Discussion

     A. The Exception Was Filed By the Union

     The Union submitted a statement which authorized the
grievant to sign the exception on its behalf. Therefore, the
exception was filed by the Union and not by the grievant.
Accordingly, the exception is properly before the Authority.
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1738, AFL -
CIO, 29  FLRA  178, 188 (1987).

     B. The Exception Provides No Basis For Finding the Award

     The Union has failed to establish tha