on 08-12-2015 2:11 PM
Hello,
Can some one please share me custom rule to identify Paid/Unpaid Leave?
Generally recorded Absences are captured in time type "0120 - Fill time Absence". Do we need to create any other time type to capture unpaid leave?
Kindly suggest , your help will be really appreciated.
Reg, Naresh
Dear Naresh,
check the counting rule for LOP absence in the table T556C, check mark for all weekdays in condition for current day from monday to sunday. system will calculate when you book lop on off-days also.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
I have checked the LOP counting rule in T556C and it is marked for all weekdays.
Actually we are calculating employee work paid days in PCR as sum of any of this day ( Public holidays + Emp present for work days + Week-offs + Paid Absences ).
And we didn't consider unpaid leaves into count as per our current PCR.
But our scenario is, if we do not want to pay employee for entire month , in that case we will update LOP as absence for entire month but it will get counted under unpaid leave. Actually we are paying for Week-off even though LOP updated for employee.
In Time PCR how to identify unpaid leave?
Please suggest. Thanks!
Hi Naresh ,
this PCR is it in time / payroll .
"Actually we are calculating employee work paid days in PCR as sum of any of this day ( Public holidays + Emp present for work days + Week-offs + Paid Absences )."
If in Payroll then factoting pcr's should solve your issue .
If in time PCR , then you can identify the leave code wise and determine whether is paid or unpaid
or you can use absence category filed and mark the unpaid leave types with a unique 2 character code and use it in time PCR
Please check VARST/VARAB operation
Hello ,
Here please find below explained the Scenario:
We are using positive time management and wrote custom PCR for calculating paid days. In that we calculate Week-off(Sundays) has been considered as paid days but for some absconded employees we do not want to pay full month salary so we will update LOP ( unpaid leave) for entire month. But our custom PCR is still calculating salary for week-off days. So we need to identify, during week-off's if there is any LOP updated then that week-off should not be considered as day. Kindly suggest any rule available to check this condition. This will help to fix our issue. Thanks!
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
As far as i understand, This can be handled through Absence valuation concept. If it does not fulfill the requirement then we can go ahead with PCR's in that case also we can straight way configure one absence type LOP when ever it is maintained then we will reduce the components, Apart from this even though LOP is maintained, Weekly off's should be considered as paid days. Few cases who are absconded for them do not want to pa salary for weekly off's we will have to distingush those employees with regular employees and needs to nullify those weekly off days in the existing PCR then accordingly it works.
There are many ways we can handle it completely depends on the existing system.
Regards
Venkatesh
We already using PCR to calculate actual number of days worked by employee in a month. In that rule we mentioned that week-off's are considered as day worked.
This rule is not correct for those employees who didn't work for entire month and still get salary for Week-offs ( 4 or 5 days in a month).
We have leave type LOP and we will update that for entire month.
Now my question is how to identify unpaid leave through Time PCR where unpaid leave applied in week-off day. So that the particular week-off day (DWS class =0) shall not be considered as worked day.
If we have option to identify unpaid leave in payroll through Payroll PCR then how can we identify that paid leave is falling under week-off day (DWS class =0)?
This issue need to be fixed in Time or payroll... please suggest.
User | Count |
---|---|
103 | |
12 | |
11 | |
6 | |
5 | |
4 | |
3 | |
3 | |
3 | |
3 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.