Remuneration Statement is incorrect when For-Period recalculated twice

[LarrySuttles]

Hello experts,

I am seeing an issue when a For-Period is retroactively calculated a second time (both times there are retro differences to be paid) and the Remuneration Statement is displaying the total difference even though part of the retro was paid on the previous check during the first retro calculation. My example is:

- In-Period 19/2015 had retro back to For-Period 18/2015 for AMT = 53.87. Remuneration Statement displayed correctly (i.e. "R" for wage type/hours/PERNR/amount).

- Employee's department then reported more hours in period 18/2015 for an additional amount owed to employee equaling 365.75. So In-Period 20/2015 also had retro back to For-Period 18/2015, but the Remuneration Statement displayed the total amount of retro incorrectly as 419.62 (Retro AMT paid in In-Period 19/2015 plus retro AMT paid in In-Period 20/2015).

I have played in PE51 with the different setting for "Cumulation ID" for our custom form and played with setting on program RPCEDTU0_CE to no avail.

I think this maybe an issue for SAP to resolve, but wanted to ask the group first if they had similar experience and a resolution.

Thanks,

Larry Suttles

University of Cincinnati

[former_member193210]

The Remuneration Statement is a "report" with many available parameters, so you should always confirm that the Payroll Results have the correct information (directly through pc_payresult).

The configuration of the Remuneration Statement does have an impact on how the results will be shown/printed, but the input parameters also do.

If the Payroll Results are correct, I suggest that you try playing around with the available parameters for "Print retroactive runs" and "Layout of retroactive runs" before trying configuration changes.

Our Remuneration Statement is not configured using Evaluation Classes (from V_512W_D) but though listing the WTs in Groupings in Windows, and each WT looks at the results in 3 tables; RT, CRTK (CRT for Canada) and RTS (which should be the retroactive differences, according to the consultant we had in 2000).

Note from this screen that each WT uses some 3 Line Layouts, enabling to combine on one  line the retroactive AMT, the current RTE/NUM/AMT, and the cumulative AMT, or 2 lines for other WTs (where one line is for the retro AMT/RTE/NUM and the other line is for the current RTE/NUM/AMT, the cumulative AMT always being printed on the current line only).

[LarrySuttles]

Thanks for your suggestions. I did try changing the parameters of the report before I attempted any config change, but didn't have any luck.

By any chance do you know how to view what is in table RTS? The only thing that I can see that comes close to displaying what retro changes should appear on the statement is table BAL, within the payroll results. Table BAL clearly shows what has already been processed (accounted) for taxation purposes and the difference with the unbalanced amount is what should be displayed on the statement as retro.

I have completed some more testing and came to the conclusion that my config is correct. I created a similar scenario on an employee who has been active/paid for years and the remuneration statement displayed the retro correctly for the scenario I outlined above. The employee that has the display issue has multiple assignments (CE) and the assignment that is displaying incorrectly is a new assignment with all the retro pay changes occurring during their 1st period being processed by payroll.

Years ago I faintly remember similar issues due to CE, so I have written an incident to SAP asking for their assistance in resolving the issue.

Larry

[former_member193210]

Table RTS should be the retroactive variations, according to the configuration of our Remuneration Statement (for Canada, and not for CE), but that table is not listed in the possible entries for the Table field of the Layout Group.

Note that the initial configuration for our Remuneration Statement was done by an SAP Consultant, back in 2000-2001.  We've been modifying it since, but never changed that parameter as it is the table used for the Line Type used to display retroactive values.