Bunker makes two types of briefcase, fabric and leather. The c system. In preparation for the possible switch, Bunker has ide Number of labor hours Number of material moves Number of setups Fabric Case Leather Ca 10,00 1,13 15 20,000 819 84 Total estimated overhead costs are $315,900, of which $253,5 Required: 1. Calculate the overhead assigned to the leather case line usi Overhead Assigned 2. Calculate the overhead assigned to the leather case line usin Overhead Assigned and leather. The company is currently using a traditional costing syster , Bunker has identified two activity cost pools: materials handling and se Leather Case 19 10,000 1,131 156 84 , of which $253,500 is assigned to the materials handling cost pool an ather case line using the traditional costing system based on direct labo ather case line using ABC traditional costing system with labor hours as the cost driver : materials handling and setup. Pertinent data follow ials handling cost pool and $62,400 is assigned to the setup co stem based on direct labor hours. (Do not round intermediate ver but is considering switching to an activity-based costing tup cost pool iediate calculations.) Number of material moves Number of setups 819 84 1,131 156 Total estimated overhead costs are $315,900, of which $253,500 i Required: 1. Calculate the overhead assigned to the leather case line using t Overhead Assigned 2. Calculate the overhead assigned to the leather case line using Al Overhead Assigned 3. Was the leather case over- or undercosted by the traditional cost Leather Case 1,131 156 253,500 is assigned to the materials handling cost pool and $62,400 e using the traditional costing system based on direct labor hours. ( ne using ABC itional cost system compared to ABC? d $62,400 is assigned to the setup cost pool or hours. (Do not round intermediate calculations.) 2. Calculate the overhead assigned to the leather case line verhead Assigned 3. Was the leather case over- or undercosted by the traditico Leather Case ther case line using ABC. d by the traditional cost system compared to ABC