Peter Rush

Without the ability to specify a date of change between calendars, if the worker books time off during the transition period, the default number of hours in a time off request on a given day may be wrong. If the number of hours they work is increasing they will not be able to book the correct number of hours.

If someone changes working pattern, the number of approved hours booked should be automatically changed to match the new work pattern, e.g.:

• 8 hrs was booked off on a Friday, after the work pattern change Fridays will be non-working days. This booking should be cancelled and the 8 hours put back on their balance.
• 8 hrs was booked off on a Monday, after the work pattern change Mondays will change from being an 8 hour day to a 5.5 hour day. This This should be automatically reduced to 5.5 hours and the extra 2.5 hours put back on their balance.

Manually adjust existing bookings in this way to conform to a new work pattern can amount to a lot of work, be prone to human error, and potentially send out email notifications leading to confusion.

If at the beginning of the year someone enrolled in an annual plan has an FTE of 1.0, they get the full allowance for the year. If half way through the year their FTE changes to 0.5, their allowance should be reduced to 75% of the full allowance. This doesn't happen even if accrual is deleted and regenerated.

For companies with short accrual periods the difference this inaccuracy amounts to but in companies with Annual accrual periods, which is most of them in the UK, this discrepancy is massive.

If someone changes leave plans there should be an option to transfer future bookings against the old plan across to a leave type in the new plan. It's a lot of work to do this manually and open to human error. In some organisations workers changing plan is a frequent occurrence

A worker's true FTE often runs to several decimal places accuracy. Having to round this to only 2 decimal places can produce a significant rounding difference when calculating annual leave allowance for the year.

On a broader note, staff seeing less annual leave allowance than they they expected / are entitled to, forces them to raise a query with their Line manager or HR, and retracts from their sense of job satisfaction.

This is a really important issue to some of our customer, meaning that at the start of every year they need to generate and upload corrections file and put comms out to staff

For many of our customers carrying unused leave balance forward and subsequent expiry of that balance is something that needs to be reviewed and approved by a Line manager or Department head, etc. As this capability is not included customers end up not using the carry forward and carry forward expiry features, do the whole thing off-system and then prepare and upload data reflecting the results of these processes.

If you set up a rounding rule on a leave type and add it to a plan with 'Accrual policy on enrolment' set to Prorated, the rounding rule is observed when enrolling a worker part way through an Accrual period. If the tier on the plan has 'Use full time equivalency' ticked the rounding rule is ignored.

If customers have specified that they want accrued balance to be rounded and accruals are then generated that don't observe those settings, they rightly feel that the functionality isn't behaving correctly.

Many transfers don't represent a change in Line management hierarchy: i.e.: promotion to a higher grade, but still managing the same team. In these scenarios, after completing the transfer one has to separately search for all the positions reporting to the old position and mass update them to report to the new one. This is a lot of extra clicks, quite awkward to do and easily forgotten. If forgotten, this effectively leaves workers without line managers causing issues such as workflow failures.

Can we have a feature on the transfer dialogue that allows us to specify that direct reports should move across to the worker's new position, please?

When a position is retired, position hierarchies of direct reports' positions are left active, meaning that people are left reporting to retired positions. This breakdown in the reporting hierarchy leads to failures in approval workflows and causes the org chart (position hierarchy) to become littered with lots of orphaned "Retired position" tiles