-
Posts
-
We had a weekly payroll and earlier this year we switched to bi-weekly. Now, when I try to process an ROE I get an error “Encountered pay period number 52 but was expecting a number between 1 and 26.” There are no pay periods listed above 26, as we switched to bi-weekly in February.
The problem is that the ROE routines have to go back close to a year to report insurable earnings/hours. To do this it ‘walks backwards’ through the employee’s pay cheques and, for each pay cheque looks at the pay period number it was issued for. With that number, it knows which ‘slot’ (Box 15 if memory serves) to add the earniings/hours to.
In your case the employee is (currently) paid under 26 pay-periods, so the program gets a little confused when it encounters a pay cheque that was issued for a pay period number greater than 26 (it was issued while the employee was weeklt.)
Unfortunately there is no way to remedy this – you will have to complete the ROE manually (but I guess you have already done that.) When the ROE support was added it was obvious that it would be a large effort to accomodate this situation when the number of employers that change their pay frequency is close to zero.
Regards,
Bob Halpin
So it seems I have to wait until 1 year passes (or 27 pay periods as per the ROE forms) in the ‘new’ bi-weekly pay period setup?
Thanks for your input.
Dave.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
