按集体合同生成薪酬工作簿

A better implements the payroll terms, although neither fully meets the compliance requirement. A’s Payroll!O6 applies the 25% electronic premium to the synth substitute’s rehearsal and sound-check earnings as well as the show premium. B’s Weekly Payroll!AN15 premiums only the shows, omitting the electronic premium required for all work. A also links audit pay to recorded attendance and a two-audits-per-book cap; B’s AK15 pays any entered audit count at base scale without enforcing that cap or adequately checking eligibility. Both separately total the required payroll categories and centralize editable rates. B has better cent-rounding and a stronger split-rehearsal waiver check, but these do not outweigh its pay-calculation error. A remains incomplete: its sound-check frequency check examines only the current week, so another check in a later week of the same engagement can escape detection. B has the same limitation, and neither checks the required ten-minute rehearsal intermissions after each fifty minutes. These gaps prevent either model from reliably flagging CBA conflicts across any production run.

B has the materially better synth-substitute pay calculation: Payroll!O includes the 25% electronic premium on rehearsal and sound-check earnings, while A’s Weekly Payroll!AN uses only base wage × shows, omitting the non-performance premium required by Art. 4.2.f.i’s “all work” provision. B also separates attendance from the per-person payroll report and selects wage rates by effective dates, supporting weekly submission and annual updates. A has stronger split-rehearsal waiver validation and cent rounding. Neither fully meets the compliance requirement: both count sound checks only within the current weekly schedule, so repeat calls elsewhere in the engagement are not detected, and neither captures or checks Art. 7.2’s required ten-minute daytime-rehearsal intermissions.

Both workbooks meet the core brief. Each has a rates sheet built for annual updates, a roster for any orchestra size (30 rows), a weekly schedule, attendance marking, CBA compliance flags, and a per-musician payroll split into performance, rehearsal, sound check, audit, premium, doubling and vacation pay, with totals. A is stronger on correctness, demonstrated function and usability. A's strengths: (1) The rendered Payroll tab shows working results that check out by hand. The synth sub gets $376.59 (150% × base × 1 show), $278.35 rehearsal, $76.59 sound check and $502.12 for two audits. The concertmaster premium is 20% = $472.69. Woodwind doubling is 45% = $1,063.55. The grand total is $30,759.13. (2) A applies the 25% electronic premium to the synth sub's rehearsal and sound-check pay as well as to each show. This follows Art. 4.2.f.i's "all work" wording. B's synth-sub formula pays only 25% × base × shows, so it omits that premium on rehearsal and sound check. That is likely an underpayment. (3) Rates are chosen automatically from the payroll week-ending date, with a check that flags no match or more than one match. B requires the user to pick the active contract year from a dropdown. (4) Visible conditional formatting highlights the 9:30am rehearsal input in amber. Audit rows carry a blue note. (5) A checks that a string quartet is exactly four players who form the entire string section. It also caps paid audits at two per book and uses engagement length in the sound-check frequency rule. (6) Capacity is 40 services against B's 25. The payroll sheet is compact and printable. B's strengths: premium-category dropdowns, a compliance banner that counts violations, a more rigorous Art. 7.4 lunch-waiver check, a meal-break-under-30-minutes warning, and sheet protection. B's weaknesses: the attendance grid and pay columns share one 46-column sheet, with pay in columns AF–AT, which hurts readability. Its rendered Instructions page is cut off across print pages. Its Roster, Schedule and Payroll were not rendered, so its outputs cannot be verified. Overall, A is more correct on the synth-sub test case, more automatic, and proven to compute.

Both workbooks are full multi-sheet payroll models. Each has an updatable rate table, a roster for up to 30 musicians, a schedule with Art. 7 compliance flags, a service attendance grid, and per-musician columns for performance, rehearsal, sound check, audit, premium, doubling, vacation (5.5%) and total pay. Regular musicians calculate identically in both (e.g., concertmaster $2,992.12). B is stronger on correctness: - **Synth substitute premium.** B pays the 25% premium per show from Art. 4.2.f.ii and also the Art. 4.2.f.i 25% electronic premium on the sub's rehearsal and sound-check pay (premium $151.50; total $1,461.33). A's synth-sub formula, IF(EngSynthSub, PremElec*BaseWage*shows), drops the electronic premium on rehearsal and sound-check work. That underpays the one non-standard musician in the sample. - **Premium eligibility.** B derives premiums from role flags plus an eligible-instrument list. It also flags concertmaster or lead roles on the wrong instrument. A relies on the contractor picking a premium category from a dropdown and does not check whether the instrument is eligible. - **Audits.** B treats audits as scheduled services, limits payment to per-show synth subs, and flags more than two audits per book. A takes a manual audit count with no cap. - **Rate selection.** B picks the active rate row automatically from the week-ending date and flags gaps. A requires a manual year dropdown. - **Usability.** B's Payroll tab is a compact, print-ready submission sheet. Its rendered pages show computed values with no errors and grand totals that reconcile ($30,759.13), and a cover note gives worked results. A has real strengths: a top-of-payroll violation-count banner, actual verification of Art. 7.4 waiver conditions, sheet protection and thorough documentation. However, its payroll columns sit past 25 attendance columns (AF–AS), and its Instructions sheet prints poorly across pages. Overall, B is the more accurate and more usable payroll tool.