SSP not paying to new starter

[Former Member]

hello,

I am having an issue with the calculation of SSP for new starters and would be grateful for any pointers.

Customer sick scheme says that for the first 6 months, there are no entitlement bands. Customer is expecting, therefore, SSP to caluclate and pay as per standard daily rate for any qualifying days. this works OK for one idenfitied employee. For the error employee, GBSxP is calculatting OSP and paying this. My question is this:

how can OSP be calculating for one employee and not the other, when there are no entitlement bands in the scheme at this point?? the only difference i have so far found is in the "Table MSA filled with OxP data between..." bit. If you expand fully, under the lines that say accessing tables T512W and T554C, just above the line that reads "KIT Day Processing" the error employees has the line "Daily Rate in ONIL gives xxx,xxx.xx" the employee who works does not have this line at all. Where does thsi process come from? both employees are identical eegroup and subgroup so COVER and GMOD are processed the same for each.

I hired (not clone) the correct employee into the DEV system but they do not work in DEV. perhaps there is something different in the way the employees were hired? actions are all identical. IT0041 no records for either. attempts to move employees to same position had no effect.

thank you very mcuh for any assistance

best regards

Adam

[harishtk1 · Accepted solution]

Could it be that there is an absence scheme override maintained for the employee which pays him OSP?

Is the AWE of the employee well above the LEL for him to be paid SSP?

Are there any exclusions messages appearing? What happens when you run reports such as PC00_M08_ENTS and so forth? What mark appears for the days in question?

It should say Daily Rate in ONIL gives 0.00 actually - if it is saying xxx,xxx,xx instead, possibly ONIL is assigned to the wrong Valuation rule? If no OSP is payable, the valuation rule should be 25, shouldn't it?

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Harish, hi

thanks for the swift come back.

neither of the employees have any override entries on IT0572

SAWE frozen average for the absence period for the error employee ( from AVERAGE table of pay results) shows 30,243,576.00 (so plenty there)

PC00_M08_ENTS for the error employee shows "SSP Payment" against the absence for which none is paying! SxP entitlement band SP.

RPLABSG0_SXP_EXCLUSIONS shows no output for employee

RPCLPCG0 shows day mark SP for 4 days expected SSP payment

RPLABSG0_SXP_OXP_HIST shows SxP Day Mark Desc. of SSP Payment for the 4 days for which SSP payment is expected

RPLABSG0_SXP_OXP_BCHG shows no entitlement band changes for the sickness period (abs. category = SS)

RPLABSG0_SxP_OxP_SCHM shows no entitlement of any kind for first 5 months.

best regards

Adam

[harishtk1 · Accepted solution]

Hi Adam,

Looks like Absence Scheme config is absolutely fine.

Looks like something has gone wrong with the settings in T554C absence valuation?

in the "Table MSA filled with OxP data between..." bit. If you expand fully, under the lines that say accessing tables T512W and T554C, what does it say it is

looking for in T554C? Can you please check what rule is set up there? Looks like system is deriving a value for ONIL instead of ot being 0.00, and as there is a non zero value, SSP is getting offset for the "OSP" that has got calculated.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Harish, hi

well that's a relief that the scheme is probably OK at least.

here's what I have for the first day of absence:

MSA record processed: Starting on 21.08.2012 and ending on 21.08.2012

    OxP Paid: From OSP marks in table COVER

      On 21.08.2012: tables WPBP, MODIF, PSP, AB and IT accessed

      Processing COVER submark  1440SY S25: Matched with AB record 01

      T554C read: Keys 08 03 25 on 21.08.2012

      T554C defines ONIL has time unit RT and is paid

      T512W read: Keys 08 ONIL on 21.08.2012

      T512W correctly defines /010 as the full time wage type

      Daily Rate in ONIL gives 487,500.00

    KIT Day Processing:

    Holiday Day Processing:

    Full Pay: From wage type /010

      Daily Rate in /010 gives 487,500.00

in T554C for 08 03 25 I have the following:

validity: 01.01.1900 to 31.12.9999

Form counting classes

CC for absences: 20 (Unpaid absences)

Paid: unticked

Percentage: 100.00

Day Rule: 21 (Custom)

Valuation using constants/averages

Wage typoe: ONIL (Nil Pay)

Time: I (valuation in current payroll period)

Percentage: 100.00

Time Unit: RT (Payroll days)

Basic Pay Split: ticked

Day rule: 21 (custom)

Day Rule

Conditions set for holiday classes: all ticked in previous and current day

Condition set for day type: all ticked for prrevious day; blank and day type 1 ticked for previous day

Condition set fort weekday: Monday - Friday (inclusive) ticked

Conditions set for planned hours: all ticked for current and previous day

best regards

[harishtk1 · Accepted solution]

Cant find anything wrong with the Absence Valuation rule as well.

Can you please check V_512W_B for ONIL? it should be 0% of /010.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Harish, hi

thanks for continuing to look at this.

I think that's it (I knew it would be something simple)

V_512W_B

valuation basis: 10

Statement WT: ONIL

% rate: 100.00

I changed this to 0 and reran in DEV - SSP calculating and paying. no OSP.

thank you VERY MUCH!!

May I ask the following also? why does it still work in simulation for the one employee in PRD (where the valuation basis still reads 100.00 with validity from 01.01.1900? i.e. why, in simulation, does this employee still get SSP and not OSP (for the absence in MAy 2012). I am guessing that the valuation basis was changed after their payroll. does the payroll scheme pick up the valuation basis details from the payroll results and not from V_512W_B if it is a rerun/simulation?

best regards

Adam

[harishtk1 · Accepted solution]

No, I would expect the payroll to rerun with the current master data and config. The absence is for May 2012, so you must have forced the retro.

I would hazard a guess that the two employees are not 100% alike in the relative timing of their absences with respect to hire date etc.. So some thing slightly different is happening in GBSXP for this guy.

Perhaps it would become apparent if you trawl through the log..Maybe ONIL is still generating a rate, but it is multiplied by zero, so not generating OSP.

If you do find out please let us know.. sounds intriguing - we have figured out something wrong in the config, but inspite of that payroll calculates correctly. Glad that your original problem is solved at any rate.

Thanks and Regards

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Harish, hi

yes, thanks. all seems sorted now. I'll have a look at the differenced (they do have different periods between first hire and first absence), and see if I can come up with anything. I'll post it up here when/if I find out.

best regards

Adam