Averages for GB Payroll

[GirieshM]

Hi Experts,

I am facing a problem with the averages for GB payroll. In my system, the old average (/202 and /203) (V_T512W)and the new average (/211 and /212) both are configured and because of it, the system calculation for statutory pay calculated wrongly. We came to know that the problem is due to configuration of both in System. Can anyone suggest how to stop the old configuration and use only the new one.

With Regards,

Giriesh M

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Delimit all the configuration from the date your new configuration is started, for all configuration steps being used.

Regards,

Bhagyashree

[GirieshM · Accepted solution]

Hi Bhagyashree,

Thank you for the immediate response. Yes you are right the configurations has to be delimited (in the sense /202 and /203) has to be delimited 01.04.2003 date. The Report RPUAVBG0 has to do the above mentioned but no luck on that.

With Regards,

Giriesh M

[GirieshM · Accepted solution]

Hi All,

Any one who's system works with new average methodology let me know how is the record looks like in V_512w_C. The program has to do it manually but it didnt.. Any ideas that I can do it manually?

With Regards,

Giriesh M

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Please delimit those two wage types. Hopefully your issue will be solved.

Regards,

Bhagyashree

[GirieshM · Accepted solution]

Hi BhagyaShree,

I have delimited the wage types in V_512W_C with the date: 01.01.1901 to 31.03.2003 and 01.04.2003 to 31.12.9999 for /202 and /203. But still the amount gets added to the Average. I have checked from which PCR the /202 and /203 gets generated and it is from X023. Any Ideas?

With Regards,

Giriesh M

[GirieshM · Accepted solution]

Hi All,

Finally Solved the issue. Seems to be simple change just uncheck the selection but causes huge problems . The problem is not because of /202 and /203 but due to /202 and /203 Inflow/Outflow wage types. In my case, we have a custom WT where the averages (V_512W_C) position XXXX (your Custom WT) has checked with /202 and /203. So whenever this WT occurs it also creates /202 and added to the /211 which makes the employee eligible for maternity pay but in real it shouldn't.

With Regards,

Giriesh M