Hi Barbara,
Since our LSP dos code is not covered comp, please use LSB in this realease for our campus.
Thanks,
Pearl
-----Original Message-----
From: "Barbara Vanden Borre" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 6/16/05 6:17:14 PM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: payroll release 1646 - addendum
For some reason my printed version of the release letter does not include
a brief second paragraph that appears in the version now on the web, stating:
In addition, to properly charge the $125 lump sum bonus to an IAP account
as covered compensation, a new DOS Code of 'LSI' should be set up on the
DOS Table.
nor does it include any references at all to LSI, which I therefore omitted
from my original cmppay-l note. I am now adding the following information
to clarify and amplify use of DOS codes:
The FT transactions containing the departmental charges will be assigned
a DOS code of LSP. The transactions charged to the special payment FAU
will be assigned a DOS code of LSI. In perusing campus DOS tables,
I see that LSP is already defined, but LSI is not, so it will need to be
added. ASUCLA will need to add both DOS codes.
bvb
------------------------------------------------------------
>Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:33:46 -0700
>
>The University has entered into an agreement with AFSCME for the
>SX service unit to give its eligible members a one-time lump-sum bonus
>payment of $250. Release 1646 provides the support for those payments
>in the form of a one-time program, PPOT1646, that identifies the eligible
>employees and generates FT transactions to be processed in a compute
>as well as costing transactions. PPOT1646 follows the model of similar
>collective bargaining programs from past releases.
>
>Eligibility criteria from the release letter are:
>
>1. Title Code is in the range of 4000-9999.
>2. Appointment Title Unit Code (EDB 2029) = 'SX'
>3. Appointment Representation Code (EDB 2031) = C (Covered)
>4. The Hire Date (EDB0113) is on or before the Contract Date (May 9, 2005).
>5. The Appointment End Date (EDB2003) must not fall before the Contract Date.
>6. The Appointment Begin Date (EDB2002) must not fall after the Contract Date.
>7. Employment Status must be 'A', 'N', or 'P' when the one-time payment is
>generated.
>
>
>Other points of interest:
>
>- Charges for these payments will be split equally between an fau
> to be coded on the spec card and employee distributions that are
> active on the run date. Costs will be pro-rated among the selected
> distributions, but see the release letter for information on special cases.
>
>- The FT transactions will be split into separate files based on the
> employee's primary pay schedule, thus offering the option of paying
> them on regular pay cycles. The batch number is hard-coded as
> '599' in the program. Be sure to let us know if this will present a
> problem.
>
>- A DOS code of 'LSP' and a pay period end date of 050905 (the contract
> date) will be assigned.
>
>- Costing transactions will be given an action code of '32', which may or
> may not be suitable for every site. It depends on how you have your
> costing tables set up.
>
>- Two reports will be created. OT16461 is a signing bonus roster, and
> OT16462 is a control report that lists the special payment fau and
> record and dollar counts.
>
>- As usual, the program will also generate an 'electronic report file' to be
> written to a prescribed FTPUSRx dataset.
>
>IMPLEMENTATION
>
>- R1646 can be skipped entirely for Hastings, which has no SX employees.
>- ASUCLA does have SX employees who I believe are covered by the wage
> agreement, so I assume we'll run PPOT1646 for them. Sadie, can you
> confirm?
>
>- R1646 is designated as date-mandated, and we are 'strongly encouraged'
> to 'process the FT pay transactions in the compute with a normal pay
> cycle check date of August, 2005.' If you opt to pay the bonuses
> separately, it should still be in the same time frame, as the objective is
> for SX employees across UC sites to receive their bonuses at approximately
> the same time. This gives us plenty of time to prepare.
>
>- We're expecting there will be some site differences, at a minimum the
> fau to code in the spec card. San Diego has already notified us that they
> wish to use a different DOS code and a different costing action code.
> And, of course, we'll need to know your preferences for scheduling of the
> one-time job and for making the payments.
>
>Would you please let us know your local requirements and provide the
>payment fau when you send us your ok to install the release?
>
> bvb
|
