Company that pays weekly wants to send census to me quarterly

[Jim Chad]

Is this going to be the nightmare I imagine?

A company with about 130 participants and about 750 employees over a calendar year pays weekly. (Obviously, they have a high turnover.) They Plan on uploading contributions to the Investment company weekly. The office manager wants to send me payroll data only quarterly or twice a year. The Plan has age 21 and 500 hours in six months eligibility. I use Relius software.

I am thinking that if I receive the hours and comp weekly, Relius will do a huge amount of the work automatically. If I get the date 2 or 4 times a year, I think I will have to force a lot. Does anyone have any experience with this on this large a scale? (I do this with some plans with 5 people now)

[Tom Poje]

the only issue I can think of off the top of my head is eligibility, since the first computation period is 1000 hours from date of hire to anniversary date. thus its possible you might miss someone who is eligible. most of what i do is on an annual basis, and its extremely rare that I have to ask for hours for a particular period just to make sure of things. if the plan has less than a year of service for eligibility, then hours rarely matter. If it is self directed accounts then allocation of gains isn't going to matter as in the case of a pooled account, so their is no weighting of deferrals to worry about. so I don't think you will have much of a problem.

(good to meet you at the conference!)

[buckaroo]

For ease of operation, I would think you would need to get the data at least as often as the entry dates. For example, if it were quarterly entry dates, then you would need to upload the hours in the quarterly payroll slot prior to each entry date, this should probably allow for Relius to properly calc elig.

[JanetM]

How would you do quarterly statements if they only send you data twice a year? Or are they saying the montly/quartly stmts from investment company meed the requirements?

[Jim Chad]

John Hancock will provide quarterly statements. So that part is taken care of.

The plan required 500 hours in 6 months to be eligible and dual entry dates. And most people have variable hours from 5 to 40 hours per week.

My concern is for example someone is hired in the second half of the year. The first period to look at for eligibility will be the first 6 months. But unless they are hired very close to the beginning of the quarter, Relius is not going to mark them eligible at the correct date.

Depending on their hours, Relius may mark them eligible 6 months late. That could be the next Plan Year.

[Guest Jennyb473]

My concern is for example someone is hired in the second half of the year. The first period to look at for eligibility will be the first 6 months. But unless they are hired very close to the beginning of the quarter, Relius is not going to mark them eligible at the correct date.

Depending on their hours, Relius may mark them eligible 6 months late. That could be the next Plan Year.

I use Relius also and I'm not sure why you think it would not pick up eligibility properly. If person was hired 10/1/08 and you get hours and census quarterly, you would get this person's info on 12/31/08. You would create a quarterly pay cycle and enter his hours and comp at 12/31/08 and run eligibility. Again, same thing will happen at 3/31/09. When you run eligibility at 3/31/09 if this person has over 500 hours his "met requirements" field would be filled in with 3/31/09 and entry would be 4/1/09.

If person was hired 11/30/08, same thing - first info would be in the 12/31/08 "payroll" and next would be at 3/31/09 and then at 6/30/09. He would hit 6 months at 5/31/09 and 6/30/09 eligibilty should pick it up fine.

[Jim Chad]

With the variable hours these people work, I can imagine or I should say remember, a huge problem...because I have faced it in a similar plan with only a few employees.

Example: She is hired on 9-18-09 and works 30 hours that quarter, then works 300 hours the next quarter. My system thinks that the initial 6 month period is July 1 to December 31 and starts looking at her semiannually. But in reality, she works 200 hours in in the part of the first quarter up to February 18th. Now she has meant eligibility and gets in 7-1-10. If she works 500 hours in the first half of 2010, the system brings her in 7-1-10 and everything is fine. But the busy season is over and she may only work 300 hours in the first half of 2010. It is easy to imagine her being kept out for 1 or several 6 month periods too long.

And this doesn't even mention rehires. She will miss telling me about some people that I should have included in testing.

It has been an aggravation for a small plan. What is this going to be like for a plan with up to 700 people to look at each year?

Or am I being a worrywart and I should just let the office manager tell me who enters when and figure that any problems are .........

Tom, you said you do many Plans annually, don't you have a lot of screw ups to fix. Just tonight, I have two problems with two small plans that only send me info quarterly and insist on calculating the SHNEC themselves. One put in too much because they did not stop comp and $230,000 and the other missed a newly eligible entering July 1.

[Guest Jennyb473]

With the variable hours these people work, I can imagine or I should say remember, a huge problem...because I have faced it in a similar plan with only a few employees.

Example: She is hired on 9-18-09 and works 30 hours that quarter, then works 300 hours the next quarter. My system thinks that the initial 6 month period is July 1 to December 31 and starts looking at her semiannually. But in reality, she works 200 hours in in the part of the first quarter up to February 18th. Now she has meant eligibility and gets in 7-1-10. If she works 500 hours in the first half of 2010, the system brings her in 7-1-10 and everything is fine. But the busy season is over and she may only work 300 hours in the first half of 2010. It is easy to imagine her being kept out for 1 or several 6 month periods too long.

why would the system think her first 6 months is 7/1/09-12/31/09? If plan specs are set up properly Relius knows to start counting from hire date forward 6 months to figure when entry requirements have been met and then enters an future entry date in thes Status and Service screen. You need to make sure entry requirements and payroll cycles are entered properly and you shouldn't have a problem with Relius not picking someone up on time. We use it for both daily and balance forward plans and don't have any problems with entry dates being picked up properly.

[pmacduff]

I'm with Jenny, I have no problems with Relius and eligibility as long as the specs are coded in correctly...large or small plans. Rehires can always be an issue regardless of plan size, seems like I am always rechecking those!!

You are right though, Jim, sometimes when you are relying on the client to provide the information there can be some errors in that data which in turn cause problems.

On my large plans in particular, whatever the data gathering during the year (weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.), I still request the final W-2 or gross wages at year end (as applicable) so that I can verify the data I received throughout the year against the totals at the end. Sounds like a lot of work, but it works well for me and I can catch any discrepancies.

Good luck!

[Jim Chad]

Jennyb473 I realize that Relius would not think her first six months was 7-1-09 to 12-31-09.

Hire date 9-18-09. I put in 3rd quarter hours on Relius for 9-30-09. This includes 12 days of his employment.

I put in 4th quarter hours on Relius using 12-31-09. This includes hours for 3 months. Now I have hours for 3 months and 12 days

I will not have any hours to put in on 3-17-10, the end of the initial 6 month eligibility period.

The problem is that if I am receiving payroll quarterly, I will be putting the comp and hours from 1-1-10 to 3-17-10 in on the 3-31-10 quarter and Relius knows that 3-31-10 is past the 6 months for someone hired on 9-18-09.

[K2retire]

Is there an hours requirement associated with your six month period?

I've never had a problem with the situation you describe, but when using a period of less than 1 Year of Service we do not use an hours requirement.

[Guest Jennyb473]

Jennyb473 I realize that Relius would not think her first six months was 7-1-09 to 12-31-09.

Hire date 9-18-09. I put in 3rd quarter hours on Relius for 9-30-09. This includes 12 days of his employment.

I put in 4th quarter hours on Relius using 12-31-09. This includes hours for 3 months. Now I have hours for 3 months and 12 days

I will not have any hours to put in on 3-17-10, the end of the initial 6 month eligibility period.

The problem is that if I am receiving payroll quarterly, I will be putting the comp and hours from 1-1-10 to 3-17-10 in on the 3-31-10 quarter and Relius knows that 3-31-10 is past the 6 months for someone hired on 9-18-09.

Is it quarterly entry after the 6 months/500 hours/age 21 requirement? I just did your exact example in Relius in a test plan and it worked perfectly.

I used 9/18/06 as my hire date and I have my specs set as stated above. I entered 96 hours in 9/30/06 quarterly pay cycle (12 days at 8 hours per day) and then I ran eligibility for 9/30/06. Relius coded her as Ineligible due to Hours. I then entered 480 hours at 12/31/06 (160 hours per month for 3 months). I ran eligibility for 12/31/06 and she is now coded at Ineligible due to Service (she has now reached the 500 hours mark). I went into the next plan year and entered 480 hours in 3/31/07 quarter end and ran eligibility at 3/31/07. In her Status and Service screen her "met entry requirements" is now populated at 3/31/07 and she is still Ineligible due to Service. I then entered 480 hours in 6/30/07 quarter end and ran eligibility at 6/30/07 and she is now Active as of 4/1/07 with a plan entry date of 4/1/07.

I could have run eligibility at 4/1/07 and gotten the same results but I left it at quarterly for my example. If it was monthly entry I could have done the same thing. I guess the only time it would not work is if you have entry on Date of Event - but then you would have to have comp weekly and would have to run eligibility weekly.

Try it - it works as long as you have the specs set up right.

[buckaroo]

Jennyb473,

I see what both you and Jim are saying, but I think your example has an oversight related to the person in your example being a full time ee. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to enter it into Relius, but if you do, what happens if the ptp does not make the hours by 12/31/2006. i.e. enter on 280 hours in the 12/31/2006 slot and 480 into the 3/31/2007 slot. Does this change your results? (How is the system calc the computation period? Does it switch to 10/1 -- 3/31?) I would think that since the participant did not meet the hours (500+) by 3/17, it may not properly calc the information depending on how the system is set-up... Just a thought...

[Jim Chad]

Buckeroo, you are right on. That is my problem. Most of these employees do not work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks per year. The hours are extremely variable. That adds to the problem of figuring eligibility using only brain power.

Looking at another Plan I have that is similar, I have learned over the last 11 years that even getting hours monthly is not enough. My experience has been that Relius brings most people in right. But now, for anyone close, the employer goes to the timecards and checks using the date of hire to 6 months later.

By the way, this wasn't my idea. There have been a few years where many months after the profit sharing was put in, the employer came back and told me I missed someone. And this trouble has been on a much smaller employer.

[Guest Jennyb473]

Buckeroo, you are right on. That is my problem. Most of these employees do not work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks per year. The hours are extremely variable. That adds to the problem of figuring eligibility using only brain power.

Looking at another Plan I have that is similar, I have learned over the last 11 years that even getting hours monthly is not enough. My experience has been that Relius brings most people in right. But now, for anyone close, the employer goes to the timecards and checks using the date of hire to 6 months later.

By the way, this wasn't my idea. There have been a few years where many months after the profit sharing was put in, the employer came back and told me I missed someone. And this trouble has been on a much smaller employer.

Ok , I tried Buckeroo's idea of 260 hours in the 12/31/06 pay cycle and then 480 in 3/31/07. She is now showing as Ineligible due to Service at 3/31/07 but has "met entry requirements" at 3/31/07. So now, running eligibility at 6/30/07 she shows as Active with an entry date of 4/1/07. So it appears to still work. I don't know if it has something to do with the pay cycle being set up as quarterly only - so the system knows it can't look to an exact date 6 months later, but the period end date that follows that. I'm not sure.

My guess is it would work right 90+% of the time but in my experience even when we get census per payroll you will always come across some rehire or new hire that just doesn't look right. I usually pull a census (custom report I created) into excel and sort in a manner I can understand (eligible, ineligible, terminated, etc) and then run the Projected Eligibility report (standard-plan) and compare the 2 to make sure Relius is picking up everyone I think it should.

[cdavis25]

Jim,

It should work as long as Relius is coded correctly and you have the census more frequently then the entry dates. I had a large Plan with eligibility of 250 hours in 3 months with quarterly entry with the exception for no more then 1 yos. I was receiving the census quarterly. They system coded everyone correctly. Did you try contacting Corbel support? They should be able to help you.