按集体合同生成薪酬工作簿

B’s payroll formulas better follow the CBA. Its synthesizer-substitute calculation is based on shows played, while A subtracts rehearsal and sound-check earnings from the show minimum, producing no top-up for the sample substitute. B implements a paired-rehearsal minimum-call waiver; A always applies three hours per rehearsal despite Article 7.4. B also pays the sample French Horn player the 15% premium specified in Article 4.2.c, whereas A pays none and incorrectly disallows it whenever trumpet is present. Both centralize rates and itemize earnings by musician, and B’s rendered instructions are more usable. Neither fully meets the task: B imposes an unsupported highest-premium-only rule and lacks quartet-eligibility and ten-minute-intermission checks. Both check sound-check frequency only within the current week, not across the engagement. A’s broader compliance checklist does not outweigh its material payroll errors.

A better preserves the CBA’s pay structure. It retains the Art. 4.2.c 15% French-horn premium when a trumpet is present and implements a paired-rehearsal minimum-call waiver calculation. B explicitly forbids that horn premium, pays none in the sample, and always applies a three-hour rehearsal minimum. B’s Payroll column N also offsets rehearsal, sound-check and premium earnings against the synthesizer substitute’s show minimum, suppressing the sample’s show-minimum adjustment. A’s service-dated rate lookups and more legible rendered instructions improve usability. Neither fully satisfies the task: A does not check required rehearsal intermissions or quartet qualification and imposes a highest-premium-only assumption not stated in the excerpt. Both check sound-check frequency only within the current week, so they cannot enforce the engagement/eight-week limit. Both provide calculated, separate per-person payroll categories.

Both workbooks have the core parts the task asks for. Each has a rates sheet that can be updated by contract year, a roster with premium and doubling inputs, a schedule, an attendance grid, a per-person payroll broken out by CBA category (performance, rehearsal, sound check, audit, premiums, doubling, vacation) and automatic conflict flags. B applies the CBA more accurately on the points that drive the money. (1) French horn premium. A's Roster check treats any horn premium as a violation when the show has a trumpet, citing Art. 4.2.a, and the sample gives the horn 0%. Art. 4.2.c explicitly lists French horn for 15% "regardless of seating position". So A both underpays the horn and would flag a correct entry as a VIOLATION. B gives the horn 15% and correctly restricts only the 20% first-horn rate to shows with no trumpet. (2) Synth sub rule (Art. 4.2.f.ii). A's top-up formula nets the 150%-per-show minimum against the sub's rehearsal and sound-check earnings, so it never triggers. The sub's show is paid at 125% of base. B pays MIN(150% × base × shows, guarantee) plus 25% per show ($376.59 + $62.77). B does omit the 25% electronic premium on the sub's rehearsal and sound check, which is a smaller error than A's. (3) Weekly guarantee. B applies the guarantee to performance pay ($2,008.50 versus 8 × $251.06 = $2,008.48), with premiums on top. A compares the guarantee against totals that already include premiums. (4) B implements the Art. 7.4 minimum-call waiver logic; A only describes it. B's cover-note totals ($3,989.49 for woodwind; $30,665.51 for the week) are consistent with its formulas. A has real advantages: a dedicated 22-rule CBA Checks sheet with OK/REVIEW/VIOLATION status, string-quartet eligibility checks, meal-break and intermission inputs, payroll-week date validation, and a larger grid (100 musicians × 50 services versus B's 40 × 30). B lacks a meal-break input, so it would flag any rehearsal over 5 hours, and it chooses not to stack premiums. A's Read Me also renders with cramped, overlapping text, while B's renders cleanly. Overall, B's more correct contract application outweighs A's broader but partly wrong checking logic.

Both workbooks have the parts the task asks for. Each has a rates sheet that can be updated, a roster, a schedule, an attendance grid, and a payroll sheet with per-person category columns. Both flag inputs that conflict with the CBA. The deciding factor is whether the pay calculations follow the CBA. **Where A is more accurate:** - **French horn premium.** A pays the first local French horn 15% under Art. 4.2.c, which lists French horn "regardless of seating position." B gives the horn 0%, and its roster check would flag a 15% horn premium as a VIOLATION whenever a trumpet is present. That underpays the horn in the sample. - **Synth substitute (Art. 4.2.f.ii).** A pays the per-show rate as MIN(150% × base × shows, weekly guarantee), which gives $376.59 for one show, plus a 25% per-show premium. B treats the 150% as a top-up against the sub's rehearsal, sound-check and premium earnings. The sample sub therefore receives a $0 top-up and never gets the 150% rate the sample is designed to test. - **Weekly guarantee.** A floors performance pay at the guarantee. B compares the guarantee against total earnings including rehearsals, premiums and doubling. That would materially underpay doublers in weeks with fewer than 8 shows. - **Other rules.** A also implements the Art. 7.4 minimum-call waiver. Its rate table is keyed by effective date and looks up each service by its own date. Its article citations are correct; B repeatedly cites "Art. 5.5.b" for what is Art. 4.5.b. - **Totals.** A's cover-note figures reconcile with its formulas: $18,453.09 performances, $3,135.24 premiums, $3,426.99 doubling, $30,665.51 total. **Where B is stronger:** - It has more capacity: 100 musicians × 50 services, against A's 40 × 30. - Its CBA Checks summary sheet covers 22 rules. - It auto-detects a string quartet and checks the 10-minute intermission rule. - It applies the 25% electronic premium to the sub's rehearsal and sound check. A omits this, which is a real flaw in A. **Presentation.** B's Read Me overlaps when printed, its assumptions are labelled out of order, and its printed attendance grid is unreadable. A's layout is cleaner and includes violation/warning counters and a signature block. On balance, A computes the sample payroll more faithfully to the CBA and is more usable, so A is the stronger deliverable.