The Bakery's Overtime Squeeze
Ridgeway Bakery is a family-owned enterprise in a regional town with 14 employees, three of whom are full-time supervisors. A national supermarket chain has just opened an in-store bakery two streets away, cutting Ridgeway's wholesale orders by 18% in one month. The owner, Priya, has two options on the table. Option A: cut the two casual weekend packers and ask the three supervisors to work rotating Saturday shifts at ordinary pay, which their award permits only if a genuine time-in-lieu arrangement is documented. Option B: keep all staff but reduce the wholesale line to four days a week, cutting each supervisor's hours by 15%. The supervisors have said informally they would rather keep full pay than keep their Saturdays free, but no one has put this in writing. Priya must decide before the next roster cycle in nine days.
1. Using the concepts of productivity, employee motivation and legal compliance, recommend which option Priya should pursue. Justify your recommendation with reference to the specific constraints in the case.
Read the worked answer
A strong answer weighs three competing considerations rather than picking the option that looks cheapest.
Legal compliance favours neither option outright, but Option A carries a sharper risk. Time in lieu is lawful only when it is genuinely agreed and documented. The supervisors have spoken informally, not in writing, and Priya would be relying on a verbal understanding to avoid overtime. That is exactly the kind of arrangement that fails if disputed. Option B, by contrast, varies hours downward, which still requires consultation but is less likely to breach an award.
Productivity favours Option A in the short term. Cutting two casual packers removes the lowest-cost, most flexible labour, so the remaining supervisors absorb weekend packing at their higher hourly rate. Output per labour dollar may actually fall even though headcount is lower, because Priya is substituting expensive labour for cheap labour. Option B spreads the pain across the more expensive supervisors but preserves the whole team's availability.
Motivation is the deciding factor. The supervisors' stated preference for pay over free Saturdays signals that Option B's 15% pay cut will damage morale and may trigger resignations of the very people who hold operational knowledge. Losing a supervisor costs recruitment and training, which is a hidden cost Option A avoids.
Recommendation: Priya should take a modified Option A - document the time-in-lieu arrangement in writing before the roster cycle, confirm it with each supervisor individually, and retain one casual packer for the busiest Saturday. This secures the labour saving, respects the award, and preserves supervisor goodwill. Pure Option A is non-compliant in practice; pure Option B trades a small payroll saving for a large retention risk.
2. Priya's accountant argues that cutting the casual packers is 'obviously' the cheaper choice. Evaluate this claim using the idea of direct versus indirect costs.
Read the worked answer
The accountant is comparing direct wage costs and ignoring indirect costs, which makes the claim look stronger than it is.
Direct costs do fall under the cut. Two casual packers at, say, weekend penalty rates represent a visible, recurring line in the payroll. Removing them produces an immediate and measurable saving, which is why the claim seems obvious.
Indirect costs move the other way. Three supervisors working Saturdays at ordinary pay still cost more per hour than casual packers, so the substitution may not save as much as the raw headcount suggests. If the time-in-lieu arrangement is later found to be invalid, Priya faces back-pay and possibly penalties. Supervisors working six days risk fatigue, error rates and absenteeism during the week, which shows up as rework and lost wholesale orders. And if a supervisor resigns, recruitment and training costs land on an enterprise already absorbing an 18% order decline.
Judgement: the claim is only valid if Priya compares total cost, not payroll cost. A defensible version would be: 'cutting the packers reduces direct wages by X, but only if the time-in-lieu documentation holds and no supervisor leaves within twelve months.' The accountant's framing treats an uncertain saving as certain, which is the error the exam is testing.