Generating Complementary Rule Instances When There Are Multiple Resolutions with Different User Field Sets
A complementary rule is an earning or deduction that the system resolves automatically to complement an existing element assignment when that assignment's begin and end dates do not encompass the entire pay period.
This topic discusses how the system:
Creates complementary rule instances when there are multiple element assignments and positive input entries for an earning or deduction and the earnings and deductions have associated user field values.
Defines the process order of complementary rule instances relative to element assignment and positive input entries.
Important! This topic supplements the information on complementary rule instances in the Setting Up Overrides topic. You should review the Setting Up Overrides topic before reading the information in this topic.
Complementary rule instances are created only under the specific conditions outlined in the Setting Up Overrides topic, and the same basic requirements for generating a complementary rule that apply when there are no user fields apply when assignments have associated user field sets.
In addition, the following must be true before the system can generate a complementary rule instance for a specific element assignment:
There can be no positive input of the type Override, Resolve to Zero, or Do Not Process with the same user field set in any pay period slice, as this prevents the creation of the complementary rule.
There can be no positive input of the type Override or Resolve to Zero already populating the same slice in which the system is attempting to create the complementary rule instance—regardless of whether the positive input has the same user field set as the complementary rule.
Note: The system never generates more than a single complementary rule instance for an assigned element in any slice, even when there are multiple assignments of the same element, and each assignment has a different user field set. For instance, if you assign the same deduction five times in the first slice in a pay period, and apply a different user field set to each assignment, the system generates only one complementary instance in the second slice.
Example: Multiple Assignments with the Same or Different User Field Sets Trigger the Creation of A Single Complementary Rule Instance
Assume that there are two assignments of earning element E1 (calculation rule of Rate x Unit x Percent) and that the assignments have the same user field set. The begin and end dates of the element assignments are June 1 and June 15 respectively:
Note: In this example, element assignment is abbreviated Assign.
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
Assign (Instance 2) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
Slice 2: June 16–30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unit |
5 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
Rate |
50 |
60 |
60 |
|
|
Percent |
150 |
100 |
100 |
|
|
User Field (State) |
Nevada |
California |
California |
The system creates two slices within the calendar based on the assignment begin and end dates (slice 1 = June 1–15; slice 2 = June 16–30).
The system resolves E1 as follows:
1. In slice 1 (June 1–15): 2 x 60 x 100% x .5 (proration factor) = 60
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
Assign (Instance 2) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
Slice 2: June 16–30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unit |
5 |
2 |
||
|
Rate |
50 |
60 |
||
|
Percent |
150 |
100 |
||
|
User Field (State) |
Nevada |
California |
2. In slice 1 (June 1–15): 4 x 60 x 100% x .5 (proration factor) = 120
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
Assign (Instance 2) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
Slice 2: June 16–30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unit |
5 |
4 |
||
|
Rate |
50 |
60 |
||
|
Percent |
150 |
100 |
||
|
User Field (State) |
Nevada |
California |
3. In slice 2 (June 16–31): 5 x 50 x 150% x .5 (proration factor) = 125
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
Assign (Instance 2) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
Complementary Rule Slice 2: June 16–30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unit |
5 |
5 |
||
|
Rate |
50 |
50 |
||
|
Percent |
150 |
150 |
||
|
User Field (State) |
Nevada |
Nevada |
The system creates a single complementary rule instance for E1 in slice 2 (June 16–30) by reverting to the rule definition (the definition of the earning specified in the Earning Definition component). Note that the system creates only one complementary rule for the two earning assignments.
Example: A Positive Input Override in One Slice Prevents the Creation of a Complementary Rule in Another Slice
A deduction D1 is set up to trigger element segmentation (and proration) when it is assigned to a payee.
D1 is assigned to a payee with begin and end dates of June 1 – 15.
There is a positive input override for D1 with begin and end dates of June 1 and June 15.
The positive input override and the rule definition share the same user field value.
Note: In this example, element assignment is abbreviated Assign, positive input is abbreviated PI, and the positive input action type of override is abbreviated Over.
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
PI (Over) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
Slice 2: June 16–30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unit |
5 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
Rate |
50 |
60 |
60 |
|
|
Percent |
150 |
100 |
100 |
|
|
User Field (State) |
Nevada |
California |
Nevada |
The system creates two slices within the calendar based on the assignment begin and end dates (slice 1 = June 1–15; slice 2 = June 16–30).
The system resolves E1 as follows:
1. In slice 1 (June 1–15): 2 x 60 x 100% x .5 (proration factor) = 60
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
PI (Over) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
Slice 2: June 16–30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unit |
5 |
2 |
||
|
Rate |
50 |
60 |
||
|
Percent |
150 |
100 |
||
|
User Field (State) |
Nevada |
California |
2. In slice 1 (June 1–15): 4 x 60 x 100% x .5 (proration factor) = 120
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
PI (Over) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
Slice 2: June 16–30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unit |
5 |
4 |
||
|
Rate |
50 |
60 |
||
|
Percent |
150 |
100 |
||
|
User Field (State) |
Nevada |
Nevada |
2. In slice 2 (June 16–30): No complementary rule resolution.
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
PI (Over) Slice 1: June 1–15 |
Complementary Rule Slice 2: June 16–30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unit |
5 |
No Complementary Rule Resolution |
||
|
Rate |
50 |
|||
|
Percent |
150 |
|||
|
User Field (State) |
Nevada |
The positive input override in slice 1 (June 1 – 15) prevents the creation of a complementary rule in slice 2 (June 16 – 30). This is because the positive input override has the same user field value (Nevada) as the rule instance that the system attempts to create in slice 2, based on the rule definition entered in the Deduction Definition component.
Example: A Positive Input Override Prevents the Creation of a Complementary Rule Instance in the Same Slice
A deduction D1 is set up to trigger element segmentation (and proration) when it is assigned to a payee.
D1 is assigned to a payee with begin and end dates of June 1 – 10; as a result, the system generates a segmentation trigger with an effective date of June 11.
A segmentation trigger is created as a result of a change in pay rate and deduction D1 is on the segmentation event list; the trigger effective date is June 21.
There is a positive input override for D1 with begin and end dates of June 11 and June 20.
The positive input override and the rule definition do not share the same user field value.
Note: In this example, element assignment is abbreviated Assign, positive input is abbreviated PI, and the positive input action type of override is abbreviated Over.
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Slice 1: June 1–10 |
PI (Over) Slice 2: June 11–20 |
Slice 3: June 21–30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unit |
3 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
Rate |
50 |
60 |
60 |
|
|
Percent |
150 |
100 |
100 |
|
|
User Field (State) |
Nevada |
California |
Texas |
The system creates three slices within the calendar based on the deduction assignment begin and end dates and the additional segmentation event (slice 1 = June 1–10; slice 2 = June 11–20; slice 3 = June 21–30).
The system resolves D1 as follows:
1. In slice 1 (June 1–15): 3 x 60 x 100% x .33 (proration factor) = 60
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Slice 1: June 1–10 |
PI (Over) Slice 2: June 11–20 |
Slice 3: June 21–30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unit |
3 |
3 |
||
|
Rate |
50 |
60 |
||
|
Percent |
150 |
100 |
||
|
User Field (State) |
Nevada |
California |
In slice 1, the system resolves the earning/deduction assignment.
2. In slice 2 (June 11–20): 4 x 60 x 100% x .33 (proration factor) = 80
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Slice 1: June 1–10 |
PI (Over) Slice 2: June 11–20 |
Slice 3: June 21–30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unit |
3 |
4 |
||
|
Rate |
50 |
60 |
||
|
Percent |
150 |
100 |
||
|
User Field (State) |
Nevada |
Texas |
Note that the system does not process a complementary rule instance in slice 2. This is because an override in the same period as a complementary rule prevents resolution of the rule. This is true even though the override (user field = Texas) does not have the same user field set as the complementary rule (user field = Nevada).
3. In slice 3 (June 21–30): 3 x 50 x 150% x .33 (proration factor) = 75
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Slice 1: June 1–10 |
PI (Over) Slice 2: June 11–20 |
Complementary Rule Slice 3: June 21–30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unit |
3 |
3 |
||
|
Rate |
50 |
50 |
||
|
Percent |
150 |
150 |
||
|
User Field (State) |
Nevada |
Nevada |
The system creates a single complementary rule instance for D1 in slice 3 (June 21–30) by reverting to the rule definition (the definition of the deduction specified in the Deduction Definition component).
The system uses the process order rules for segmented calendars described earlier to determine which user field set to process first, second, third, and so on when there are element assignment and positive input entries combined with complementary rule instances. In other words, earning/deduction assignments continue to dictate the order of processing; however, the following, additional rules apply when there are complementary rule instances:
When the system generates a complementary rule instance, the resolution order of that instance is determined by the process order number of the element assignment with same user field set (if any) in any slice or segment; within that user field set, however, the system processes the complementary rule instance based on the order of the slice in which it occurs.
Note: If there are multiple element assignments with the same user field set as the complementary rule, the system always uses the lowest process order number from among the assignments to determine the process order.
If there is no user field match between the element assignments and a complementary rule instance, the system processes instances in the order of the slices, using the process order rules described earlier to determine the order. .
The examples in this topic illustrate these rules.
Example 1: Process Order When an Element Assignment Shares the Same User Field as the Complementary Rule
An earning E1 is set up to trigger element segmentation (and proration) when it is assigned to a payee.
E1 is assigned to a payee with a begin date of June 16 and a user field value of State = MO; the amount is 3000 and the end date is open.
E1 is assigned to the same payee with a begin date of June 16 and a user field value of State = AR; the amount is 3000 and the end date is open.
At the rule definition level, E1 is defined with a calculation rule of Amount and a user field value of State = MO. The amount is 4000.
Note: In this example, element assignment is abbreviated Assign.
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Process Order Number = 10 Slice 2: June 16–30 |
Assign (Instance 2) Process Order Number = 20 Slice 2: June 16–30 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Amount |
4000 |
3000 |
2000 |
|
|
User Field (State) |
MO |
MO |
AR |
The system resolves three instances of E1 in the following order:
|
Element |
Instance |
Assign Instance |
Amount |
User Field |
Begin/End Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
E1 |
1 |
0 |
2000 (Complementary Rule Instance) |
MO |
June 1– June 15 |
|
E1 |
2 |
1 |
1500 |
MO |
June 16 – June 30 |
|
E1 |
3 |
2 |
1000 |
AR |
June 16 – June 30 |
In this example, the process order number of the element assignment with the user field set of MO drives the process order of the matching complementary rule instance; within that user field set, the system processes the complementary rule and associated element assignment in the order of the slices in which they occur (slice 1 before slice 2).
Example 2: Process Order When an Element Assignment Shares the Same User Field as the Complementary Rule
An earning E1 is set up to trigger element segmentation (and proration) when it is assigned to a payee.
E1 is assigned to a payee with a begin date of June 16 and a user field value of State = AR; the amount is 3000 and the end date is open.
E1 is assigned to the same payee with a begin date of June 16 and a user field value of State = MO; the amount is 2000 and the end date is open.
At the rule definition level, E1 is defined with a calculation rule of Amount and a user field value of State = MO. The amount is 4000.
Note: In this example, element assignment is abbreviated Assign.
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Process Order Number = 10 Slice 2: June 16–30 |
Assign (Instance 2) Process Order Number = 20 Slice 2: June 16–30 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Amount |
4000 |
3000 |
2000 |
|
|
User Field (State) |
MO |
AR |
MO |
The system resolves three instances of E1 in the following order:
|
Element |
Instance |
Assign Instance |
Amount |
User Field |
Begin/End Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
E1 |
1 |
0 |
2000 (Complementary Rule Instance) |
MO |
June 1– June 15 |
|
E1 |
2 |
1 |
1500 |
AR |
June 16 – June 30 |
|
E1 |
3 |
2 |
1000 |
MO |
June 16 – June 30 |
In this example, as in the previous one, the process order number of the element assignment with the user field set of MO drives the process order of the matching complementary rule instance; within that user field set, the system processes the complementary rule and associated element assignment in the order of the slices in which they occur (slice 1 before slice 2). However, the user field values and process order numbers of the element assignments are reversed in this example (as compared to the previous one). In other words, the assignment with the user field set of AR has a lower process order number (higher priority) than the assignment with the user field set of MO, and is calculated first, respecting slice order.
Example 3: Process Order When an Element Assignment Does Not Share the Same User Field as the Complementary Rule
An earning E1 is set up to trigger element segmentation (and proration) when it is assigned to a payee.
E1 is assigned to a payee with a begin date of June 16 and a user field value of State = KS; the amount is 3000 and the end date is open.
E1 is assigned to the same payee with a begin date of June 16 and a user field value of State = AR; the amount is 2000 and the end date is open.
At the rule definition level, E1 is defined with a calculation rule of Amount and a user field value of State = MO. The amount is 4000.
Note: In this example, element assignment is abbreviated Assign.
|
Component |
Rule Definition |
Assign (Instance 1) Process Order Number = 10 Slice 2: June 16–30 |
Assign (Instance 2) Process Order Number = 20 Slice 2: June 16–30 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Amount |
4000 |
3000 |
2000 |
|
|
User Field (State) |
MO |
KS |
AR |
The system resolves three instances of E1 in the following order:
|
Element |
Order Number |
Assign Instance |
Amount |
User Field |
Begin/End Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
E1 |
1 |
0 |
2000 (Complementary Rule Instance) |
MO |
June 1 – June 15 |
|
E1 |
2 |
1 |
1500 |
KS |
June 16 – June 30 |
|
E1 |
3 |
2 |
1000 |
AR |
June 16 – June 30 |
In this example, there is no user field set match between the element assignments and the complementary rule instance. The system processes the complementary rule before the assignments following the order of the slices; it processes the assignment with the user field of KS before the assignment with the user field of AR based on their process order numbers.