A representative example of what a Contract-as-Code assessment delivers. The organisation, figures, and findings below are illustrative — not a specific customer, and never a claim of guaranteed savings.
Discrepancies grouped by severity, each traced to a source clause and the affected records.
Where employees qualified for both daily and weekly overtime in the same period, only one threshold was applied. The agreement requires both to be evaluated and the greater entitlement paid.
The weekend premium started at the calendar boundary rather than the shift-start boundary defined in the agreement, under-paying employees whose Friday-night shifts extended into Saturday.
Call-back events shorter than the guaranteed minimum were paid at actual hours worked instead of the contractual minimum call-back guarantee.
Holiday pay averaging used a fixed look-back across all units, where two units have a different averaging window under their agreement.
Rotating-shift crews did not receive the night differential on the rotation weeks where their schedule crossed the qualifying hours.
Increment dates for a subset of employees were a pay period behind the schedule defined in the agreement, delaying step progression.
Every finding includes a full decision audit trail — which rule fired, the clause it derived from, and who approved it. Findings indicate possible discrepancies for your team to review; they are not legal determinations, and require review by a qualified payroll, HR, or labour relations professional before action.
A compliance assessment validates your payroll against your own collective agreements and delivers a report like this — scoped to your workforce.