You're almost there! Please answer a few more questions for access to the Applications content. Complete registration
Interested in joining? Complete your registration by providing Areas of Interest here. Register
Get Started with Redwood for Oracle Cloud HCM   Begin Now
To ensure that questions get required attention from community members and are NOT left unanswered, it’s important for the author to indicate (by selecting “Yes” or “No” when prompted) whether the question was answered. (newly added) Please note that it is also important to respond to EACH comment your question receives. Your Yes or No response ensures an accurate status for your question.

For more information, please refer to this announcement explaining best practices for getting answers to questions.

Best Business Practice - Moving termed employees from Inactive-Payroll to Inactive-No Payroll

edited May 24, 2023 5:44PM in Payroll and Global Payroll Interface (GPI) 5 comments

Summary:

When we term employees, we set the assignment status to Inactive-Payroll. Payroll has requested us change the status to Inactive-No Payroll after the last check. They are stating that leaving termed employees in the Inactive-Payroll is causing the payroll process to run longer. I'm wondering how other companies are handling this situation.

We don't like the idea of having to update the status because it is one more thing that HR has to manage. We have thought about creating some automatic process to update the assignment status so many days after the term date. Updating the assignment status after the face will cause the last update information on the term to be irrelevant. I know the audit process can be run to get the more information, but that can not be run by person number. It will just cause more headaches when trying to determine what occurred on an employee.

Tagged:

Howdy, Stranger!

Log In

To view full details, sign in.

Register

Don't have an account? Click here to get started!