Agenda Item: Report on the Internal Audit of Payroll and Related Human Resources Processes

Action Required: □ Approval □ Discussion X Information

Motion: N/A

Summary: A review of payroll and related human resource processes was included as part of the
internal audit schedule for the 2010-11 year. This internal audit was completed, and
the attached document reports the results of the review. This report includes:
the major areas of focus and associated audit objectives of the review;
an executive summary of key findings, recommendations, and management responses; and
detailed information of all audit findings, recommendations and management responses and
action plans

Alignment: The Terms of Reference of the Audit and Compliance Committee state that the Committee is
to ensure there are processes and controls in place to efficiently and effectively use, manage
and safeguard the University’s resources. In addition, the Committee is to review internal
reports, significant findings, and recommendations concerning the adequacy of internal
controls in the University and satisfy itself that the administration is addressing the issues
raised where appropriate.

Proposed by: Wally Pirker, Institutional Research Officer

Consultation: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services
Gregory Brown, Manager: HRIS
Pamela Cant, Director: Total Compensation
Kate Konopka, Manager: Employee Relations

Rationale: The attached document informs the Audit and Compliance Committee of findings,
recommendations and associated management action plans of an internal audit of payroll
and related human resource processes.

Risk Assessment: The attached report recommends internal control and process improvements to prevent
potential errors, and associated losses, from occurring.


Attachments: Internal Audit Report on Payroll and Related Human Resources Processes
At Wilfrid Laurier University




Wilfrid Laurier University
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
BRIEFING NOTE
2010-2011
Meeting Date: January 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: A7

X Public □In-Camera

For University Secretariat Use Only (Official only if initialled by University Secretary):

Final Approval by: □ BOG □ E&G Date:___________________ Initials: _________
MOTION: Moved:___________________ Seconded:_______________ Carried □

□ same wording as recommendation □ differs from recommendation □ for information only

0





Internal Audit Report on Payroll and Related Human
Resources Processes at Wilfrid Laurier University

- Prepared for the Audit and Compliance Committee -






Prepared by: Helena Keirstead, Internal Auditor
Date: January 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: A7






1


Table of Contents

Introduction 3
Audit Coverage 3
Areas of Focus 4
Areas Excluded from the Audit 5
Other Comments 5

Executive Summary 6

Audit Report Findings, Recommendations, and Management Action Plans 9
A. Payroll – General 9
A.1 Streamlining Payroll Processing 9
A.2 Bi-weekly Payroll Processing 10
A.3 Consistency in Processing Hourly Payroll 11
A.4 Processing Manual Retro Payment Adjustments 11
A.5 Centralized vs. Decentralized Payroll Processing 12
A.6 Timesheet Approvals 13
A.7 Faxed Timesheets 13
A.8 E-mailed Payroll Requests 14
A.9 Payroll Processes Documentation Manual 14
A.10 Training and Development at the Departmental Level 15
A.11 Payroll – General 15

B. Human Resources – General 17
B.1 Employee Manuals 17
B.2 HR Action Notices – Authorizations 17

C. Payroll / Human Resources – General 18
C.1 Confidential Information 18
C.2 Misfiled Information in Employee Files 18
C.3 Logging Off Workstation 18

D. Employee Groups 20
D.1 WLUSA 20
D.1.1 Filing of Timesheets – WLUSA 20
D.1.2 Overtime Calculations – WLUSA 20
D.1.3 Overtime Hours Reported by WLUSA 21
D.1.4 WLUSA Supplemental Pay Form vs. WLU Record of Overtime 21



2

D.2 WLUFA / CAS 22
D.2.1 Faculty Relations Documentation 22
D.2.2 Contract Academic Staff (CAS) Contracts 23

D.3 Management Group 24
D.3.1 Management Group Salaries / Merit Approval Process 24

D.4 Students 25
D.4.1 Student Payroll – General Comment 25
D.4.2 Processing Fictitious Employees – Students 25
D.4.3 Student Authorization for Employment 26
D.4.4 Student Payroll – Timesheet Listing by Department 26

D.5 UFCW 27
D.5.1 Food Services Payroll Processing 27

E. Forms 28
E.1 Variety of Forms – General Comment 28
E.2 Variety of Forms – Specific 28
E.2.1 Instructional Assistants (IA) Contracts 28
E.2.2 WLUSA Supplemental Pay Form 29
E.2.3 Payroll Payment Authorization Form (PAF) 29
E.2.4 General Temporary Timesheet 30

F. Processing Errors 31
F.1 Fellowship 31
F.2 Overload Faculty Contracts 32
F.3 Merit Reconciliation 32

G. Exception Reports 34
G.1 Dollar Amount Processed 34
G.2 Hours Processed 34
G.3 Dock Report 35


3

INTRODUCTION

As part of the internal audit plan, I completed an audit of the centralized Payroll and related Human
Resource processes at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU).

The audit report describes the audit objectives and areas of focus, procedures performed, the key
observations and issues noted, and the associated recommendations. At the end of each section,
management comments and action plans have been included which address the issues and
recommendations noted. Follow up procedures will occur in the future to ensure that recommendations
have been adequately addressed and implemented.

The controls are generally in place to adequately mitigate significant risks and are operating effectively
in most cases. In those cases where control deficiencies were identified, management generally had
alternative solutions and / or mitigating strategies with which to address the deficiencies. As a result,
majority of the findings and recommendations focus on process improvements to further enhance the
efficiencies of current processes and controls within Payroll Services. Other findings have been classified
either as low, medium or high risk, depending on the potential impact these could have on the
operations of the University.

AUDIT COVERAGE

The audit focused on the period from May 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010, corresponding to WLU’s fiscal 2010.

Preliminary audit procedures focused on documenting the Payroll processes by obtaining copies of
pertinent policies, procedures and manuals related to the payroll process. This also included
walkthroughs, observations and discussions of payroll processes with the Payroll Administrators.

The audit included detailed testing of 244 random selections distributed proportionally by dollar value
and risk assessment amongst all employee groups, including:
- Management and Senior Administration,
- Wilfrid Laurier University Faculty Association (WLUFA),
- Contract Academic Staff (CAS),
- Wilfrid Laurier University Staff Association (WLUSA),
- Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE),
- United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW),
- Special Constable Services (SCS),
- International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE),
- Students,
- Non-permanent Academic Staff,
- Brantford Campus staff, and
- One-time / casual and short term payments.


4

AREAS OF FOCUS

Areas of focus and related audit objectives covered the following:

Area of Focus: Hiring Personnel
Audit Objectives:
- Additions to payroll master files represent valid employees.
- All new employees are added to the payroll master files.
- Confidential employee information is appropriately safeguarded, limiting the liability exposure and
reputational decline.

Area of Focus: Terminating Personnel
Audit Objectives:
- Terminated employees are removed from payroll master files.
- Employees are only terminated within statutory and union requirements.
- Deletions from the payroll master files represent valid terminations.

Area of Focus: Recording Time
Audit Objectives:
- Time and attendance data recorded reflect actual time worked and is authorized.
- All time worked is input.
- Time worked is accurately input and processed.
- Time worked is processed timely.

Area of Focus: Calculating Payroll
Audit Objectives:
- Payroll is accurately calculated and recorded.
- Payroll is recorded in the appropriate period.

Area of Focus: Disbursing Payroll
Audit Objectives:
- Payroll disbursements and recorded payroll expenses relate to actual time worked.
- Payroll is disbursed to appropriate employees.

Area of Focus: Maintaining Payroll Master Files
Audit Objectives:
- Only valid changes are made to the payroll master files.
- All valid changes to the payroll master files are input and processed.
- Changes to the payroll master files are accurate and processed timely.
- Payroll master files data remains pertinent.



5

Area of Focus: Withholding Table Data
Audit Objectives:
- Only valid changes are made to the payroll withholding tables.
- All valid changes to the payroll withholding tables are input and processed.
- Changes to the payroll withholding tables are accurate and processed timely.
- Payroll withholding data remains pertinent.
- Statutory withholding tables are consistent with statutory requirements.

Other Areas Covered:
- Change authorization concerns
- Segregation of duties concerns within payroll department
- Public salary disclosures are accurate and in accordance with regulations

AREAS EXCLUDED FROM THE AUDIT

The audit of Payroll Services did not cover the following areas:

- Review and testing of decentralized payroll processes to ensure appropriate controls are in place
- Ensuring employee attendance compilation procedures are adequate to ensure accuracy of vacation,
sick leave, and other attendance data
- Employee vs. contractor concerns
- Process for hiring and terminations at the Faculty Relations office, covering WLUFA and CAS employees

These areas can be audited in the future if requested by the Audit and Compliance Committee of the
Board of Governors.

OTHER COMMENTS

All individuals from Payroll Services involved in assisting me with completion of the audit were
extremely helpful and I received full cooperation in all respects. Information was provided in a timely
manner and completion of the audit took priority over all other daily responsibilities whenever feasible.
This was very much appreciated.


6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Based on the findings and recommendations included in the detailed audit report, the following
provides a summary of key findings, recommendations, and management responses.

General Payroll Processes
One of the critical findings and recommendations for the payroll audit process relates to streamlining
payroll processes between three different bi-weekly payrolls and one monthly payroll. Management has
already identified this as an area where processing efficiencies can be gained and has worked on putting
plans in place on how to streamline these processes more effectively.
Another area where efficiencies can be achieved relates to decentralizing payroll processes at the
departmental level and implementing web-based time entry system for specific groups. Management
has already considered decentralization for certain groups and testing for decentralized time entry has
been under way since October 2010. In addition, a pilot deployment of web time entry functionality is
expected to be completed by April 2011. It is important to note that costs vs. benefits as well as
effective implementation of decentralized processes need to be carefully considered by management.
In addition to the above, the audit has suggested Payroll develop targeted training sessions at the
departmental levels to address some of the current process inefficiencies and issues encountered.
Employee Groups
Some specific concerns were identified for a number of employee groups, in particular:
- Current process in regards to overtime calculations for WLUSA employees creates potential for errors.
In addition, overtime hours are submitted in bulk to payroll which raises concerns over accuracy of
overtime reported and matching of payroll expenses with overtime worked. Payroll Management will be
working with the Manager Employee Relations to develop feasible recommendations for this employee
group with regards to concerns identified.
- In regards to processing documentation from the Faculty Relations office, inefficiencies have been
identified that create concerns over processing of faculty related paperwork. The HRIS Manager has
been working with the relevant parties since August 2009 to review the business processes related to
the administration of faculty data and to implement solutions to streamline these business processes.
- With respect to Management Group, the main concern identified during the audit was the lack of
formal approvals and documentation of Management Group salaries. Though the merit process
approval is formalized, the salaries appear to be reviewed more informally only during the budget
setting process. Management will include individual employee salaries in the merit approval process in
the future.
- Student payroll process is quite time consuming and convoluted due to the large number of students
who hold a variety of student positions within number of departments throughout the University. The

7

main concern of the current process is the ability to verify the authenticity of authorizations of student
timesheets. A recommendation has been made to consider implementing a web-based time entry
system for the student payroll to eliminate some of the concerns with processes that are currently in
place. As noted above, Management has already considered decentralization and implementation of a
pilot deployment of web time entry functionality, specifically for this employee group. Results of the
pilot will guide further action.
Forms
A general comment has been made with respect to the variety of different forms currently used by the
University for various employee groups, resulting in inefficiencies when processing payroll. The forms
should be streamlined whenever possible and appropriate communication and / or training provided at
the departmental level to advise of the format changes. Specific comments have been made in the audit
report regarding some of the individual forms where redesign would provide additional benefits in
processing payroll.
Processing Errors
During testing, a few errors were identified in processing payroll. Though the number of these was not
considered significant when compared to total population tested, the findings resulted in specific
recommendations that should prevent these processing errors from occurring in the future. It should be
noted that all processing errors identified were simply a result of unintentional human errors due to
specific circumstances encountered.
Exception Reports
Suggestions for running specific exception reports to prevent some of the processing errors identified
during the audit have been noted for management’s consideration. Management will review the
suggested recommendations and determine the most appropriate and feasible responses regarding
these recommendations.
Union Considerations
Given the Unionized environment of the majority of the employee workforce at the University, the
feasibility of some of the recommendations will depend on Management’s ability to negotiate the
suggested revisions as part of the collective bargaining process. Hence, some recommendations may not
be implemented due to Union constraints. Management will weigh the benefits vs. drawbacks of
proposing the recommendations to Union groups as they see fit.
Other Comments
The audit did not come across any issues when testing the process of hiring and terminating personnel
as it related to audit objectives identified above. In addition, other than the few processing errors
identified in the audit report, the remainder of selections tested regarding recording, calculating and
disbursing payroll were processed correctly by the Payroll department. Finally, no issues were noted in

8

calculating withholding table data, maintaining payroll master files, and public salary disclosures.
Overall, payroll process appears to be reliable and as noted, majority of the findings and
recommendations focus on process improvements to further enhance the efficiencies of current
processes and controls within Payroll Services.

9

AUDIT REPORT FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND MANAGEMENT ACTION PLANS

A. PAYROLL - GENERAL

A.1 Streamlining Payroll Processing (Classification: Process Improvements)

Observation: Currently, bi-weekly payroll is processed in three different pay periods for three different
employee pay groups, namely: staff, food services, and students. There are three staff in total
responsible for processing bi-weekly payroll:
- Two staff responsible for processing regular bi-weekly payroll,
- One of these two staff is also responsible for processing food services payroll, and
- Third staff responsible for processing student related payroll.

In addition, payroll for Management, Senior Administration, WLUFA, and CAS is processed on a monthly
basis. The fourth staff is dedicated to processing monthly payroll for these employee groups.

There are a number of issues resulting from this current structure:
1) Inefficiencies created by having three different bi-weekly payroll reporting dates plus a fourth
monthly payroll reporting date, resulting in approximately seven different payroll deadlines
within a month, reconciling seven different payroll registers, and banking payroll for seven
different pay dates.
2) Limited opportunity for cross-training of staff in processing all forms of payroll.
3) Due to strict processing timelines and the volume of information that needs to be processed,
there is little flexibility in staff’s time during each pay cycle to complete additional
responsibilities.
4) A potential for employee’s pay or optional deductions to be processed by two different
individuals, under two different pay schedules, resulting in the employee being paid twice.
Recommendation: All bi-weekly payroll should be processed with the same pay period end and pay
dates by the three payroll staff to address potential issues as identified above.
Consideration should also be given to moving the monthly payroll to bi-weekly to align it with other
groups and to create better efficiencies and effectiveness when processing payroll.
In order to fully implement this alignment between payrolls, various Union considerations must be
taken into account.
Subsequent to streamlining payroll, Management should consider re-evaluating current staffing
complement to determine the most effective and efficient way of utilizing current staffing resources.
Management Response and Action Plan: Prior to the audit, management had identified this process
improvement and plans have already been put in place to combine the student payroll with the Bi-
weekly or Food Services payroll by the end of summer 2011. This will reduce the number of bi-weekly

10

pays from three to two. Bi-weekly pay will be divided by alpha equitably, allowing for cross-training and
ensuring the payroll administrator does not process their own pay. Changing the monthly payroll
(faculty and management) to bi-weekly will require union and management acceptance. The benefits of
streamlining will have to be weighed against the additional costs associated with providing bi-weekly
instead of monthly pay deposits (i.e. administrative costs, salary costs for years with an additional pay).

Implementation: Student payroll will be combined with the Bi-weekly or Food Services payroll by the
end of summer 2011. Changing monthly pay to bi-weekly will be considered in terms of cost/benefit.
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

A.2 Bi-Weekly Payroll Processing (Classification: Low-Medium Risk / Process Improvements)
Observation: Currently, bi-weekly timesheets for employee groups (other than UFCW) are submitted by
each Wednesday prior to the end of pay period Saturday. This may result in adjustments on subsequent
pay for hours worked up to end of the current pay period, due to vacation, sickness, personal time, or
overtime that would not have been reflected on the current pay due to Wednesday cutoff. Whenever
there are adjustments, there is a risk that these adjustments may be inaccurately documented by
respective Managers and / or processed by Payroll.
Recommendation: It is recommended that bi-weekly Payroll processing for groups (other than UFCW)
be revisited and revised so that hours for each pay period are recorded before payment is processed
(i.e. similarly to process for UFCW). This would eliminate the need for adjustments and would prevent
any potential errors from occurring as a result.
However, given the majority of the employee groups that are processed bi-weekly are unionized, Union
considerations will have to be taken into account when addressing this issue.
In the interim (or if the recommendation cannot be successfully implemented due to Union constraints),
system edit checks should be set up to warn the payroll staff if they are processing payroll hours that
exceed total regularly worked hours due to prior pay period adjustments (refer to G.2 below). This will
ensure that payments to employees are accurate and include all relevant adjustments.
Management Response and Action Plan: The change to pay cycles and dates would have to be
collectively bargained. Creating a further lag between the time hours are worked and paid could be
perceived as a takeaway by the unions.

Reference to reporting “Leave” time is not applicable to WLUSA as most employees are now reporting
leave time on web.

The system does provide an error message during entry of regular hours that exceed union associated
maximums (i.e. 70 hours per pay). Timesheets are checked against the payroll register to ensure
accuracy of total hours and to prevent overpayment. Automated system edit checks to warn that total
hours (including vacation, sick, personal, overtime) exceed the allowable per pay are not currently

11

available and would require customization to a core Banner program. Management is currently
determining the most appropriate and feasible response regarding the above recommendation.

Implementation: To be determined
Accountability: Manager, Payroll Services

A.3 Consistency in Processing Hourly Payroll (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: Currently, there does not appear to be a formal policy on processing hourly payroll when it
comes to rounding of minutes or converting minutes worked to an hourly basis.
Recommendation: A formal policy should be established by the University and directed by Payroll to
ensure hours worked by all employee groups are processed consistently. The policy should include
guidelines with respect to rounding of minutes (i.e. to the nearest quarter of an hour) as well as
consistently applying conversion of minutes to an hourly basis. Payroll should communicate the policy
formally to various groups by means of a memo and / or training.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management will develop a minutes to hours policy for
posting and education throughout university.

Implementation: Commence Spring 2011
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services; Pamela Cant, Director: Total Compensation.

A.4 Processing Manual Retro Payment Adjustments (Classification: Process Improvements)

Observation: In completing detail testing for monthly payroll, it was noted in two instances that manual
retro payments were calculated incorrectly. A similar issue was also encountered when completing
testing for an employee who was on maternity / parental leave and also for an employee who worked
on a reduced workload basis.

Recommendation: A consistent calculation of manual pay should be implemented for purposes of
calculating manual retro pay, maternity / parental leave salary calculations, reduced workload
assignments, and / or any other instance where this could be applicable. Specifically, pay should be
calculated using the standard 151.67 hrs worked per month, taking into account total number of retro
days to be paid prorated over total number of business days.

Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees with the recommendation. A consistent
calculation of manual pay has been implemented as per the auditor’s recommendation.

Implementation: Immediate
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services



12

A.5 Centralized vs. Decentralized Payroll Processing (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: Currently, only UFCW payroll process is decentralized (refer to D.5.1). Management has
expressed intention to potentially decentralize processing of other payroll groups.
Decentralizing payroll results in more efficient processing of payroll centrally since data inputs and any
payroll inquiries can be dealt with at the departmental level. Therefore, Payroll Administrators can focus
their efforts on completing other tasks more effectively.
However, there are drawbacks to decentralizing payroll as well – amongst others, there are concerns
over whether appropriate controls and segregation of duties have been implemented at the
departmental level to ensure accurate processing.
Recommendation: Given some of the inefficiencies and some complexities with processing payroll
centrally as noted throughout the report it would be reasonable for the University to consider payroll
decentralization for various groups (i.e. CUPE, WLUSA, SCS, etc). However, Management should consider
the following to ensure successful implementation:
- Implementation needs to be well planned, executed and timely
- Training at the department level should be provided to ensure:
- Appropriate controls are in place for recording and processing hours worked, specifically as it
relates to adequate segregation of duties, and
- The most efficient ways of processing inputs have been implemented.
- Implementation challenges at the departmental level relating to acceptance of additional
responsibilities.
- Bi-weekly payroll registers (or equivalent), for purposes of reconciling to inputs, should be provided
from central payroll processing to each department and reconciled on a timely basis to ensure payroll
processing is accurate.

Management should thoroughly evaluate the pros and cons of each alternative to ensure the decision to
decentralize more processes is the most suitable in the circumstances. If decentralization is decided
upon, Payroll needs to drive the implementation process for each of the decentralized processes to
ensure each is executed effectively.

Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees with the recommendation and the idea
that efficiencies can be achieved through decentralized payroll for certain groups. Decentralized entry of
payroll data has already been considered by the Payroll and HRIS Managers. In fact, testing of the
Banner functionality for decentralized time entry via Employee Self-Service has been under way since
October 2010. A pilot deployment of Web Time Entry functionality for selected employees is planned
for January 2011. This pilot is expected to give Payroll a realistic view of the system behavior and
implications for the various employee groups. The pilot is expected to be complete by April 2011.
In addition, a comprehensive payroll/time entry needs analysis for the various employee groups will be
completed by April 2011. The results of the pilot and needs analysis will inform our next steps.

13


Implementation: Testing – October 2010 – Implementation determined by testing results
Accountability: Gregory Brown, Manager HRIS; Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

A.6 Timesheet Approvals (Classification: Low Risk)
Observation: It was noted on a few occasions during testing that timesheets processed are not always
authorized by a Supervisor / Manager. Though the risk of processing illegitimate time worked is minimal,
because all timesheets are received directly from the Manager, there is a possibility that an
unauthorized timesheet could be illegitimate or inaccurately reflect an employee’s time worked.
Recommendation: It is recommended that only authorized timesheets are processed. This approval
component needs to be reinforced with the Supervisors / Managers of the various departments through
intra-office memos. In addition, it is recommended that Payroll look into:
1) Implementing electronic / on-line authorization of timesheets for all departments to prevent
unauthorized processing of payroll, and / or
2) Move towards a more decentralized processing of departmental payroll. Implementation of
appropriate controls at the departmental level would be imperative to ensure the process is
working as intended (refer to A.5 above).
Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees with this recommendation. In instances
where approval signatures are not provided on timesheets, Payroll staff endeavor to obtain
authorizations through e-mails and / or phone calls whenever feasible due to restrictive timelines.
Paperwork received without an authorizing signature will not be processed. Refer to A.5 above for
additional comments regarding decentralized payroll.

Implementation: Refer to A.5 above.
Accountability: Gregory Brown, Manager HRIS; Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

A.7 Faxed Timesheets (Classification: Low Risk)
Observation: In reviewing payroll supporting documentation, it was noted in some cases, that employee
timesheets are faxed in to payroll. This is not a recommended practice, since it could result in inability to
confirm authenticity of authorization and thus process pay for fictitious timesheets. This is especially of
concern in processing student pay.
Recommendation: Faxed-in timesheets should not be accepted for processing payroll due to concern
over authenticity of information submitted. Payroll should clearly communicate this to various
departments and employee groups through a memo and / or training sessions.
In extenuating circumstances where information needs to be submitted by fax, a phone call or e-mail
communication from the supervisory / management level should precede the fax or a follow up call or e-
mail to supervisor / management should be done by Payroll.

14

Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees that it is ideal to receive timesheet
originals in payroll, however in a multi – site organization it is expedient to accept faxed timesheets in
order to ensure timely payments to employees. Student employees are the primary users of timesheets
submission. The pay period for student payroll ends on a Saturday and timesheets are due on the
following Monday by 4:30 to allow for timely processing. Accepting timesheets by mail only will result in
delayed receipt and may compromise the timely processing of Student payroll. Management has
considered the risk of timesheet forgery via fax vs. the risk of delayed timesheet receipt and feels the
latter is a greater risk to the overall integrity of the payroll process. Management will take steps to
educate employees and encourage submission of paper timesheets whenever possible.

As outlined in A.5, if the Web Time Entry functionality proves feasible, the requirement to submit time
sheets, either on paper, via email, or facsimile, will be unnecessary as student time will be submitted
approved and processed on-line.

Implementation: Education process to start January 2011
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

A.8 E-mailed Payroll Requests (Classification: Low Risk / Process Improvements)
Observation: In some instances, it was noted that requests to process payroll have come in by means of
an e-mail. This is not a recommended practice, since it’s not the most efficient way of requesting pay
processing, as in many cases it will require follow up due to missing information. In addition, e-mailed
payroll requests are not considered to be as reliable as manual documentation due to the potential for
e-mailed information to be illegitimate.
Recommendation: E-mail requests to process payroll should not be accepted as supporting
documentation. A preferred method would be to use standard forms that are currently available to
process pay, as it allows for better efficiency and ability to authenticate approvals. This should be clearly
communicated to various groups by means of a memo and / or training sessions.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees that e-mail authorizations should not be
received as the only form of pay authorization. However, management feels e-mail is acceptable when
received to support or clarify the original submission. Management will identify areas where pay
authorizations have been submitted via e-mail and work with identified individuals/areas to educate and
enforce proper completion of the supporting documentation.

Implementation: Identification of areas that submit data in this manner will begin summer 2011
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

A.9 Payroll Processes Documentation Manual (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: In reviewing the current Payroll Processes documentation binder, it was noted that
information is somewhat outdated and not very well organized. Information is fairly system specific and

15

lacks other more useful information related to general payroll processes. A new employee would likely
not find the binder very useful for purposes of training and education about the payroll process without
some additional guidance.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Payroll department revisit the information currently
included in the payroll binder to determine whether it’s relevant, current and accurate, and to decide
what other information should be included to assist in process documentation for various payroll
groups. This improved payroll manual should be used for purposes of training new payroll staff.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees with the recommendation. The updated
Payroll Manual is currently in development with a goal for completion by end of Fiscal year 2011.

Implementation: Currently under development – goal to complete by end of Fiscal year 2011.
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

A.10 Training and Development at the Departmental Level (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: On a number of occasions, Payroll Administrators have to spend time following up with
the supervisors, managers, faculty or others at the departmental level to ensure accurate processing of
information. Some of the reasons for this result from poor form completion or absence thereof, late
submission of information, inaccurate / incomplete information being provided, frequent changes in
administrative staffing, etc. There appears to be complacency on the part of those submitting the
information to the payroll department, primarily because most of the processes have been in place for a
long time.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Payroll department develop targeted training sessions
and provide this training to relevant individuals at the departmental level to address some of these
inefficiencies. In addition, a payroll procedures manual could be assembled and provided to individuals
/ departments as a means to ensure efficiency of processes, especially in cases where new staff
complete the process.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees with the recommendation. Management
will identify areas where this can be used effectively and will implement a training program in assistance
with Training and Development. Payroll training manual can be developed as a tool for new managers.

Implementation: By the end of 2011/2012 Fiscal Year (will depend on resources of Training and
Development)
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

A.11 Payroll – General (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: For the organization of this size, where salaries and benefits are approximately 80% of
University operating expenses, it appears the processes are quite manually intensive and as a result
inefficient in certain areas, as discussed throughout the report.

16

Recommendation: It is recommended Management works towards more efficient processing of payroll
by systematically implementing web-based time entry system for the various groups, decentralizing
payroll process (where feasible), and streamlining bi-weekly payroll in making the payroll process more
efficient.
In order to effectively implement the systems changes and conversion from manual to electronic
processing, a consideration needs to be given to current staffing complement of the Payroll / HR
Systems.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees with this recommendation and has
already taken initial steps in the testing and implementation of web based decentralized time entry (see
A.5). The timelines associated with the implementation are dependent upon the type and number of
additional resources required and the priority and timelines of the HRIS projects to be completed.
These are yet to be finalized.

Implementation: Testing currently underway. Implementation timelines to be determined.
Accountability: Gregory Brown, Manager HRIS



17

B. HUMAN RESOURCES - GENERAL
B.1 Employee Manuals (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: During the audit, it was noted that the current SCS Employee Manual that is available for
review electronically on WLU HR website is outdated in that the latest date of the wage grid provided in
the manual is as of period July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. This information is not current.
Recommendation: Information for all employee groups as contained in Employee Manuals or Collective
Bargaining Agreements needs to be up to date. It is HR’s responsibility to ensure this information is
updated on a timely basis and is current.
Management Response and Action Plan: All employee manuals will be reviewed to ensure accurate and
up-to-date information. Collective Bargaining agreements are all up to date.

Implementation: December 2010
Accountability: Pamela Cant, Director: Total Compensation; Kate Konopka, Manager: Employee
Relations

B.2 HR Action Notices – Authorizations (Classification: Low Risk / Process Improvements)
Observation: During testing, it was noted on a couple of occasions that HR Action Notices were not
properly authorized or authorized copies were missing from the employee file. This was mainly noticed
in completing testing of terminated employees.
Recommendation: HR staff should ensure HR Action Notices are properly authorized at all times, to
ensure legitimacy of information. HR action notices should be issued and retained in employee files in all
cases.
Management Response and Action Plan: Our current process is all action notices are completed by the
Human Resources staff, authorized by the Manager or Director prior to processing, and retained in the
employee files in all cases. We will ensure this process is followed in future.

Implementation: December 2010
Accountability: Pamela Cant, Director: Total Compensation; Kate Konopka, Manager: Employee
Relations


18

C. PAYROLL / HUMAN RESOURCES - GENERAL
C.1 Confidential Information (Classification: Low Risk / Process Improvements)
Observation: In completing the testing of employees that are currently employed in Human Resources
and Payroll departments, as well as members of Senior Administration, it was noted that all of the files
were kept confidential in AVP: Human Resources office. However, in a few instances, it was noted that
some of these employees also had a second file created that was kept in the general Payroll filing area in
addition to the confidential files in the AVP HR office. In addition, some of these Payroll files contained
both payroll and HR related information that was considered confidential.
Recommendation: For employees of Human Resources and Payroll, as well as for the members of Senior
Administration, it is recommended only one file be maintained and kept in AVP HR office to ensure
confidentiality is maintained at all times. A designated person should be responsible for allowing access
to these files in cases where the AVP HR is not available.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees with the recommendation. Duplicate files
were created for ease of filing only. These have now been removed and future changes will be given to
HR/Pension Administrator for filing in AVP HR office.

Implementation: October 2010
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

C.2 Misfiled Information in Employee Files (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: While completing the payroll audit and reviewing various employee files for testing
purposes, it was noted on several occasions that employee information has been misfiled, thus resulting
in inaccurate recordkeeping.
Recommendation: On a go forward basis, measures should be put in place by Human Resources and
Payroll to ensure only employee relevant information is filed in the proper employee file, to ensure
accuracy and ease of obtaining employee related information. The importance of this should be
addressed with all Payroll and HR staff.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees with the recommendation and will
ensure staff are more diligent in filing employee information.

Implementation: November 2010
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

C.3 Logging off Workstation (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: On a number of occasions, it was observed that when payroll / HR employees leave their
workstation, their computers are not locked / logged off. Given the confidentiality of information

19

processed by payroll / HR at any given time, it is critical that workstations be logged off / locked when
payroll / HR staff leave their desk, to ensure no unauthorized access to confidential information and to
prevent manipulation of data entered. This is considered best practice.
Recommendation: Computers should be logged off / locked when payroll / HR staff leave their
workstations.
Management Response and Action Plan: Payroll workstations have now been set up with auto log off
after 10 minutes.

Implementation: November 2010
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services





20

D. EMPLOYEE GROUPS
D.1 WLUSA
D.1.1 Filing of Timesheets – WLUSA (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: Pay periods are currently not documented on the timesheets before they are filed in the
file room. This could create inefficiencies with refilling timesheets and could result in misfiling of
documentation.
Recommendation: Pay period numbers should be clearly marked on all timesheets filed in the payroll
file room to ease tracking and refilling of documentation.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees with the recommendation. Payroll stamp
will be purchased for staff to stamp and identify the applicable pay periods paid. This will be applicable
to all payrolls.

Implementation: In progress
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

D.1.2 Overtime Calculations – WLUSA (Classification: Low-Medium Risk / Process Improvements)
Observation: While completing testing of WLUSA employees who submitted overtime timesheets, it
was noted that employees are paid time and a half at their regular rate, rather than rate and a half at
regular time. This is inconsistent with all other payroll groups tested. In addition, this method creates
potential inefficiencies and errors as was noted on one occasion during testing.
Recommendation: Similarly to other employee groups, a system code should be set up in Banner for
WLUSA employees so that payroll is able to process regular hours at overtime rate of 1.5 or 2 (as
applicable) rather than processing hours worked at 1.5 or 2 times the regular rate. This would simplify
the reporting process and would minimize potential errors.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees with this recommendation, and will work
to adjust the applicable forms and procedures to ensure consistency in the way overtime pay is
calculated across all employee groups.

Implementation: Implementation to be completed by May 2011
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services



21

D.1.3 Overtime Hours Reported by WLUSA (Classification: Medium Risk / Process Improvements)
Observation: WLUSA employees accumulate a number of hours of overtime and then submit in bulk to
Payroll for processing. This sometimes spans a number of months as noticed during the audit process
and can accumulate to be quite significant, especially given the current overtime calculation method
(refer to D.1.2 above).
Paying out overtime hours as a lump sum results in a problem of matching hours worked with
appropriate time period for payroll tracking and accounting purposes. In addition, processing large
payments impacts the withholding of employee deductions. As well, it is questionable whether
supervisors can recall the hours worked by an employee a number of months ago to ensure accuracy of
overtime hours processed.
Recommendation: Overtime hours should be submitted on a timely basis and processed in the relevant
pay period. Payroll should re-enforce this with the various departmental Managers / Supervisors
through written communication and / or direct training.
Management Response and Action Plan: Manager will identify areas where this is continuing and
communicate recommendation to department Managers / Supervisors.
Implementation: Commencing January 2011
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

D.1.4 WLUSA Supplemental Pay Form vs. WLU Record of Overtime (Classification: Process
Improvements)
Observation: Currently, it appears both the WLUSA Supplemental Pay Form and the WLU Record of
Overtime are used to process overtime hours worked by WLUSA employees. These two forms are
intended to report the same information, however due to format differences create some
inconsistencies in reporting overtime. In addition, it is unclear why there are two forms when they are
used interchangeably.
Recommendation: It is recommended to use only one form for all employee groups across WLU to
record overtime to simplify the process. Alternatively, if due to Union considerations a separate
overtime form for WLUSA is required, a decision needs to be made as to which form is most applicable
for this group. This will ensure process efficiency and consistency in form completion.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees with this recommendation. Old forms are
no longer available in payroll; however, it appears departments may still have stock of old overtime
forms. All areas have been advised of the new form when it was implemented. Payroll staff will identify
areas / individuals who are using old stock and recommend the need to use the new form instead. Refer
also to A.10 above.

Implementation: January 2011
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

22

D.2 WLUFA / CAS
D.2.1 Faculty Relations Documentation (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: Currently, information from the Faculty Relations office is received in a variety of formats.
In addition, in some instances the Senior Payroll Administrator has to complete a two step process to
ensure all data is input and processed accurately, which is not efficient. There have been instances
where documentation from the Faculty Relations office has been received either late or Payroll was not
informed of a subsequent change to original documentation in a timely manner. This has resulted in
processing errors and / or required additional work to revise the original data entry. Additionally, the
authorization of the various documents from the Faculty Relations coming to Payroll is not always
evident.
Recommendation: It is recommended that Payroll works in collaboration with the Faculty Relations
office to develop a more standardized format in which the variety of information from the Faculty
Relations office can be provided to Payroll to make the process more efficient. All information provided
to Payroll should be properly authorized.
A consideration should be given to the impact decentralization of Faculty Relations payroll would have
on the need to obtain this information. Decentralization would eliminate the need to maintain duplicate
sets of paper records and would limit the potential of inaccurate information being processed by Payroll,
limiting errors and increasing efficiencies (refer to D.2.2 below).
Management Response and Action Plan: In recent years management has worked with Faculty
Relations and there have been a number of improvements made to the way pay information is received
and processed for faculty. Management agrees there is still opportunity to improve and streamline this
information.

1. The Manager Payroll Services will work with Faculty Relations to analyze and assess the formats
used to provide information to payroll. The assessment will seek to identify ways to provide this
information in a more standardized format, incorporating clearly identifiable sections for proper
authorizations.
2. The Manager, HRIS has been working with ITS, Faculty Relations, The Office of the Registrar,
Payroll, the VPA, and all Schools / Faculties since August 2009 to review the business processes
related to the administration of faculty data and to implement solutions to streamline these
business processes. This review is part of the Faculty HRIS Project which is currently in the
analysis phase. The forms used for the submission of faculty information to HR/Payroll are
included in this project.

The recommendation above appears to address 3 issues:
- Lack of authorization or evidence thereof for some faculty related “paperwork”
- Inefficient processing of faculty paperwork
- Duplicate storage of paperwork

23

Payroll will require paperwork for faculty to have appropriate authorization.
Form redesign and processing efficiencies are being addressed as part of the Faculty HRIS Project.
Duplicate storage of paperwork cannot be avoided due to the terms of the current faculty collective
agreements.

Implementation:
1) Winter – Spring 2011
2) In progress, Spring 2012

Accountability:
1) Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services
2) Gregory Brown, Manager: HRIS

D.2.2 Contract Academic Staff (CAS) Contracts (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: Currently, CAS contracts are manually entered every term by Payroll into the Payroll
module in Banner. However, this information is already available in the Faculty Banner module. As a
result, there are two copies of contracts being maintained; one at the Faculty Relations office and one in
Payroll.
The Senior Payroll Administrator currently performs a two step check to ensure information entered in
payroll for CAS is accurate. This process is not efficient, but appears to be necessary in order to ensure
the accuracy of data entered.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Payroll department work on developing a solution that
would result in system information from the Faculty Banner module to feed directly into the Payroll
module. In effect, the payroll process would be decentralized at the point of data entry at the Faculty
Relations office and processed centrally in Payroll for purposes of payment. This would create significant
efficiencies in the Payroll department, would limit potential for error on either end, would only require
one set of records to be maintained, and would ensure information is only entered once. After the
payroll register is run, a copy should be sent to the Faculty Relations office to reconcile against the
supporting documentation to ensure it has been processed accurately.
The process of decentralizing faculty payroll should also be considered for full time faculty’s salary
contracts and related annual salary increases. This would also allow any payroll related inquiries to be
addressed directly by the Faculty Relations office rather than the Payroll Administrators, which would be
more appropriate.
Management Response and Action Plan: Processing efficiencies for the generation and processing of
CAS contracts are currently being addressed as part of the Faculty HRIS Project. Refer to D.2.1 above.

Implementation: Refer to D.2.1 above.
Accountability: Gregory Brown, Manager: HRIS

24

D.3 MANAGEMENT GROUP

D.3.1 Management Group Salaries / Merit Approval Process (Classification: Low-Medium Risk /
Process Deficiency)

Observation: Though currently salaries for the Management Group are reviewed informally during the
budget setting process, there does not appear to be a formal approval process in place to ensure
accuracy of salaries for the Management group. Only the merit component is approved formally on an
annual basis. In addition, only the merit component has been included in a letter that was prepared by
HR and provided to the employees for information purposes. It is a good practice on behalf of an
organization to inform the employees formally of their annual salaries and any related increases. It
allows the employees to be informed and address any discrepancies.
During the audit, it was difficult to find any recent information in employee files that would confirm
current employee salary. As a result, Banner system information was used to calculate the accuracy of
current salaries. Given the lack of a paper trail, this approach was the only reasonable approach to use
in order to complete the required testing of Management and Senior Administration salaries.

Recommendation: The salary should be formally approved annually during the merit setting process.
Specifically, HR should prepare a listing of employees within each of the VP’s responsibility by
departments and show their prior year’s salary, merit component and other increases for the year
ahead, and the resulting new salary. Each VP’s direct reports should then review the salaries and related
merit for the upcoming year and formally approve the document. Each area’s VPs should then have a
final signoff on the documentation and forward to HR for processing. This will ensure all employees are
receiving accurate salaries.

In addition, it is recommended annual salary letters that incorporate all relevant salary increases be
prepared by HR / Payroll and distributed to each area’s VPs, Deans, etc and then provided to employees.
This process needs to be consistent for all campuses.

Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees with the majority of this
recommendation, and the 2010 merit letters for Management and Exempt Staff included the
employee’s salary information and were sent to both the employee and their direct manager. In 2011
management will include individual employee salaries in the merit approval process at the Vice-
President level, and will require the direct manager’s signature on the merit/salary letter. It does not
seem feasible for the Vice-President to sign each individual merit letter, but they will be required to sign
/ approve the list of merit increases and associated salaries for their unit.

Implementation: September 2011
Accountability: Pamela Cant, Director: Total Compensation



25

D.4 STUDENTS
D.4.1 Student Payroll – General Comment (Classification: Low-Medium Risk / Process Improvements)
Observation: Currently, the student payroll process is quite time consuming and convoluted, due to
intricacies and complexities of processing a variety of student payments. At a high level, each student
can hold a number of positions at the University, there are number of departments involved, and there
are a number of supervisors who are able to authorize student payroll, all resulting in added risks in
processing student payroll.

Recommendation: It is recommended that Payroll consider implementing web-based student time entry
system for payroll processing purposes. At a high level, it would allow student payroll to be processed
more efficiently, would ensure authenticity of authorizations, and would reduce the amount of
paperwork that is currently used to process payroll.
To implement web-based student time entry system is a significant undertaking, one which will require
significant amount of planning and consideration of various issues. A suggestion would be for
Management to obtain information on implementation of web-based student time entry systems at
other Universities to fully understand the potential pitfalls and benefits of such a system.
As part of the implementation, management also needs to ensure adequate training is provided at the
departmental level. Consideration should be given to appropriate segregation of duties as well as
oversight responsibilities when process is decentralized.
Management Response and Action Plan: Refer to A.5 and A.11 above.
Implementation: Test beginning December 2010
Accountability: Gregory Brown, Manager: HRIS; Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

D.4.2 Processing Fictitious Employees – Students (Classification: Medium Risk)
Observation: Currently, there does not appear to be an effective process in place to ensure fictitious
student employees are not processed by Payroll. This is especially of concern with processing student
payroll, because large numbers of timesheets are submitted manually from various individuals /
departments, creating difficulties in assessing authenticity and verification of approval signatures.
Hence, it is possible for a student to prepare a timesheet, falsify authorization on the timesheet and
submit it to payroll for processing.
Recommendation: To ensure fictitious student payrolls are not processed, the University should
implement web-based processing of payroll for students (refer to D.4.1 above).
Management Response and Action Plan: Refer to A.5 and A.11 above.

Implementation: Test beginning December 2010
Accountability: Gregory Brown, Manager: HRIS; Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

26


D.4.3 Student Authorization for Employment (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: The “Authorization for Student Employment” form is required in order to set up students
who have not previously been employed by the University, prior to processing timesheets. It was noted
during the audit that this form is not always completed for each new student position; rather, as long as
the form has been completed previously, Payroll will use the biographical and other relevant student
information to process timesheets. This creates inefficiencies in processing student payroll as the
information in the system may be inaccurate and / or outdated. Hence, the use of the form itself loses
relevance given the above.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Payroll department revisit the need for, and
administration of, the “Authorization for Student Employment” form to determine the relevance and
effectiveness of using this form. It should be pointed out that this process will also have to be
considered when implementing web-based student time entry (refer to D.4.1 above).
Management Response and Action Plan: As part of Web-time entry (refer to A.5 and A.11 above),
Management will review the form and usage to determine validity and currency.

Implementation: In conjunction with testing beginning December 2010
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

D.4.4 Student Payroll – Timesheet Listing by Department
Observation: Currently, there are five departments that submit student pay information in a listing,
rather than individual timesheets. This is efficient for purposes of processing payroll; however, the
inefficiencies are created because different forms are used by each of the departments.
Recommendation: Payroll should develop a standard form that should be used by various departments
for consistency purposes. This would result in more efficient processing of payroll. The submitted lists
should be approved by a designated individual in each department before submitting to Payroll.
In addition, it is recommended Payroll review other areas where this approach could be implemented to
create additional efficiencies in processing student payroll.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management will work with the identified areas to
standardize the format and information provided to ensure consistency and to include appropriate
approvals. Additionally, an analysis will be initiated to identify other areas where a standardized format
could be used to provide efficiencies.

Implementation: Summer 2011
Accountability: Gregory Brown, Manager: HRIS; Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services



27

D.5 UFCW
D.5.1 Food Services Payroll Processing (Classification: Low Risk / Process Improvements)
Observation: Currently, Food Services payroll process is decentralized – all time is input at the
department level and the payment is processed centrally by Payroll. Currently, Payroll outputs do not
appear to be reconciled to Food Services inputs. Without this reconciling step, there is a risk that inputs
that are entered inaccurately by Food Services will not be detected.
Recommendation: Payroll department should provide Food Services with a bi-weekly payroll register
(or equivalent) for purposes of reconciling to supporting documentation to ensure accuracy.
One thing to keep in mind is that the person in Food Services who is entering the payroll information
inputs into the Banner system should not be the same person completing the reconciliation, as these
two duties are incompatible with respect to appropriate segregation of duties. Hence, either the
Assistant Food Director or a person with a similar role should be the one completing the reconciliation
of inputs to the payroll register on a bi-weekly basis.
Management Response and Action Plan: Payroll Manager will work with Manager, HRIS to investigate
the development of an on-line reporting tool for Food Services for purposes of review / audit.
Manager, Payroll Services and Manager, Employee Relations will meet with Food Services to determine
what their reporting needs are and how Payroll/HRIS can best address their needs.

Implementation: Fiscal year 2011/2012
Accountability: Gregory Brown, Manager: HRIS; Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services; Kate
Konopka, Manager: Employee Relations


28

E. FORMS
E.1 Variety of Forms – General Comment (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: Currently, the University uses a variety of different forms for various employee groups, the
format of which in most cases appears to be driven by individual departments rather than by the Payroll
Department. The result is a variety of paperwork that creates inefficiencies in processing payroll, as each
of the forms is different. Some of the forms are not very well designed as the required information is not
clearly indicated. In addition, not all forms are consistently completed by individuals, and thus
inefficiencies are created when Payroll has to follow up with various individuals to obtain relevant
information.
Recommendation: Payroll should revisit the number of different forms that are received from various
employee groups and University departments. The forms should be streamlined and revised to ensure
information requests are clearly stated. If possible, several of the forms should be combined into one to
help streamline the process. Communication in a form of a memo and / or training should be provided
to each department by Payroll to advise of the format changes.
Management Response and Action Plan: Some forms have been created at the specific request of the
Union. Management will review forms, usage and currency to determine if ‘streamlining’ is a viable
option.

Implementation: Over Fiscal year 2011 / 2012
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

E.2 Variety of Forms - Specific
E.2.1 Instructional Assistants (IA) Contracts (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: Currently, IA contracts are completed by applicable departments and though each form
contains similar information, it is in fact different for each of the departments. In addition, IA contract
dates don’t always correspond to the payroll start and end dates for the period of the contract, which
requires manual adjustments by the Payroll Administrators when processing.
Recommendation: IA contracts should be standardized amongst all departments for consistency, to
ensure all required information is captured in the most effective way. Specifically, pay dates should be
more clearly specified to correspond to pay dates. The form design and implementation should be
driven by Payroll, rather than each department and communicated with each department once revised.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management needs to identify who has ownership of this
form. Payroll will work with various areas to ensure consistency.

Implementation: Over Fiscal year 2011 / 2012
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

29

E.2.2 WLUSA Supplemental Pay Form (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: WLUSA Supplemental Pay Form is not consistently completed for purposes of recording
overtime worked. The form appears to be confusing as the column titles are not clear and may be
interpreted differently by various individuals. This may create issues in processing payroll accurately and
may also require follow up on behalf of the Payroll Administrators to ensure hours as reported are
accurately documented.
Recommendation: WLUSA Supplemental Pay Form should be revised to ensure clarity of information
being reported. This will ensure accurate processing and will eliminate the need to follow up, creating
efficiencies in processing payroll.
Management Response and Action Plan: This form was created in accordance with a WLUSA request. A
guide to complete the form is attached to the on-line form and training was provided on
implementation. Payroll will identify areas/individuals that are failing to complete the form correctly
and will work with Human Resources to provide training and education, in conjunction with
WLUSA/OSSTF to identified staff.

Implementation: Over Fiscal 2011/2012
Accountability: Manager Payroll Services and Manager, Employee Relations

E.2.3 Payroll Payment Authorization Form (PAF) (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: PAF is intended to process casual or one-time payments; however, PAF has been used in a
number of instances for documenting information other than its intended use - the result of which are
inefficiencies for purposes of processing payroll.
Recommendation: PAF should be used for its intended purposes only. Payroll should clarify this
requirement with various departments. Formatting of the PAF should be revised if applicable, to
accommodate completion for its intended use.
Management Response and Action Plan: This form is used for a wide variety of purposes instead of
creating many different forms. Payroll will review the form to determine type of use, source and
information that is not provided as required. The form is no longer used for Research Assistantships as
Graduate Studies office is now issuing these contracts on custom forms. Management will adjust PAF to
reflect total pay, vacation %, mandatory costs = total commitment, remove bottom left corner and
replace with directions for use, for example.

Implementation: Over Fiscal 2011/2012
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services



30

E.2.4 General Temporary Time Sheet
Observation: It is unclear as to the exact reasons for using of this timesheet. It appears to be just
another form that is available for use (for non-WLUSA temporary positions), without necessarily clear
guidelines as to when it should be used.
Recommendation: The use of this form should be revisited to determine whether there is a need to use
it at all. The form may be combined with other forms or removed altogether. It is recommended the
Payroll department determines the nature of uses of this form and then decide whether to retain it or
not.
Management Response and Action Plan: Similar response applies as noted above in E.2.3. Management
will review the form to determine type of uses and determine if it is necessary as a standalone form.

Implementation: Over Fiscal 2011/2012
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services


31

F. PROCESSING ERRORS
F.1 Fellowship (Classification: Medium Risk / Process Improvements)
Observation: A fellowship payment was processed in error as $990 per pay rather than for the term of
the fellowship. This resulted in a total error of $7,920. Error would not have been discovered had it not
been for the audit testing. Error was subsequently reversed as the employee has provided 18 postdated
cheques in the amount of $440 each to cover the $7,920 overpayment.
Upon further discussion with the Payroll Administrator, the reason for the mistake was human error.
The documentation was received and processed late and as a result did not get reviewed as part of the
payroll register reconciliation. It appears the Change Report was also either not prepared or not
reviewed.
Though in this case the University appears it will be able to recover the overpayment of funds, there is
always a risk to the University that the employee may be unable to pay back the amounts owing or may
refuse to do so, given the error was made by the University.
Recommendation: In order to avoid a similar issue from occurring in the future, the following are
recommendations:
1) Secondary payroll register should be run that would include any entries processed after the
initial payroll register has been run. Banner system restrictions should be taken into
consideration.
2) An exception report should be run that would identify all payments processed above a certain
dollar threshold amount (refer to G.1 below). Banner system restrictions should be taken into
consideration.
3) Change Reports should be run in all cases to ensure information has been accurately input.
4) Payroll Manager should review and approve all exception reports to ensure all payments are
accurate and legitimate. The exception reports should be maintained as supporting
documentation for a predetermined amount of time.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees it is important to perform audit checks
on payroll transactions to ensure they are processed accurately. The following are management’s
responses to the four (4) recommendations above.

1) The payroll register is a large report and can only be produced in its entirety. The Banner system
restrictions do not allow for reporting on only those transactions entered after the initial processing.
Management will work with Manager HRIS to investigate and assess the development of a customized
tracking report to capture post initial payroll entries.

2) Payroll currently runs regular threshold reports for hours as well as net bi-weekly pay in excess of
$2500, but there are not threshold reports run by employee group as suggested in G.1. Management

32

will investigate and determine appropriate threshold reporting to better reflect typical pay levels by
employee group.

3) Payroll runs a Job Audit Report listing all job data changes (including rate of pay, start and end dates,
leave dates etc) each pay. This report is reviewed by the Payroll Administrators in pairs as part of the
payroll verification process. Other payroll changes including deductions and retro payments are not
captured by the Job Audit Report, and therefore are reviewed against the Payroll Register. A single
comprehensive change report identifying all payroll changes is not currently available through Banner
and would require custom development. Management feels the current audit process provides a more
reliable and accurate audit then the development of a custom report that would not be supported by
Banner and therefore risks the integrity of the data.

4) Exception reports and audits are provided with reconciliation to Manager for review. Applicable
audits are performed and filed by staff as part of the reconciliation process. The Manager will ensure
that all audits required are run and saved each pay period.

Implementation: Spring 2011
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

F.2) Overload Faculty Contracts (Classification: Low-Medium Risk / Process Improvements)
Observation: In completing the testing of WLUFA / CAS overload payments, two errors were noted – an
overpayment of $3,291 in one instance, and an underpayment of $485 in another. Both of these errors
appear to have been a human error, processed by the former Senior Payroll Administrator. There are
number of processes currently in place and utilized by the current Senior Payroll Administrator that
should minimize the instances of similar errors from occurring.
Recommendation: The recommendation is to emphasize the importance of running the Payroll Change
reports to ensure beginning and end overload contract dates agree to the supporting documentation. In
addition, contracts should be filed by month of expiry and before the payroll is processed for the
particular month, these should be double checked against the system data, to ensure contracts are set
up to expire as intended.
Management Response and Action Plan: Payroll has resolved the overpayment in consultation with the
School of Business and will be recovering the money in Winter 2011. For the underpayment, Payroll has
investigated and paid as retro. Current Senior Payroll Administrator checks each new contract for start
and end dates and amount per pay and uses “bring forward” files to double check end/start/future
changes to ensure accuracy.

Implementation: December 2010
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services


33

F.3 Merit Reconciliation (Classification: Process Improvements)
Observation: In completing testing during the audit, it was noted that an employee in Brantford did not
receive appropriate merit component increase. This was due to the employee moving between groups,
from staff (at which point the employee was eligible for merit) to management (where no merit was
received) and was overlooked in the process. As a result of the audit, it was concluded that the
employee was owed the merit component and that it was to be processed as a retroactive adjustment
to July 1, 2009.
Recommendation: To ensure all merit increases are processed as intended, reconciliation between the
merit listing provided by HR should be completed and agreed to merit increases processed by Payroll. In
addition, Payroll Manager should review all salary increases processed to ensure these agree to those
provided by HR. When processing the merit increases, specific consideration should be given to those
employees that are in the process of changing employee groups to ensure they are captured in the
system.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees with this recommendation. In this
particular situation, timing was the issue as the employee changed groups at the same time the merit
was processed. Manager, Payroll Services and Director, Total Compensation will use this example as a
check in future merit / salary increases.

Implementation: July 2011 (during next merit setting process)
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services; Pamela Cant, Director: Total Compensation



34

G. EXCEPTION REPORTS
G.1 Dollar Amount Processed (Classification: Low-Medium Risk / Process Improvements)
Observation: As part of the bi-weekly payroll process, Payroll Administrators run exception reports
where net pay is greater than $2,500 or $1,500 per pay. Since general threshold is used for all groups
within the bi-weekly payroll, there is a risk that not all errors will be reflected on to the exception
reports (refer to example for fellowship error as noted in F.1 above).
Recommendation: It is recommended that Management review the exception report requirements and
develop more specific exception amounts that would correspond to each employee group. These
different limits would ensure that payments processed in error would more likely be caught as they
would be more applicable for each group. Exception reports should be run after each pay is processed
and before it is finalized.
In addition, edit checks should be set up at a point of data entry to double check the accuracy of input in
those cases where total payment exceeds a certain dollar threshold. This point of entry threshold should
be determined by management for each of the employee groups.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management will investigate and determine appropriate
threshold reporting to better reflect typical pay levels by employee group. Management will work with
Information Technology, and Manager, HRIS to assess the feasibility of the recommendation to apply
edit checks at point of entry, by employee group.

Implementation: Fiscal 2011/2012
Accountability: Manager, Payroll Services; Manager, HRIS

G.2 Hours processed (Classification: Low-Medium Risk / Process Improvements)
Observation: An exception report currently run is one that shows hours processed that are less than
zero. There does not appear to be a report run that would provide information on hours processed that
exceed a certain threshold. There is a risk that hours may be processed inaccurately, especially with
certain employee groups that are subject to payroll adjustments (refer to A.2 above).
Recommendation: It is recommended that an exception report for hours processed in excess of certain
threshold is run before payroll process is finalized. Any hours in excess of certain threshold should be
reviewed to ensure accurately input. The threshold should be determined based on normal hours of
work expected for each of the various groups at the University.
In addition, edit check should be set up at a point of data entry to double check the accuracy of input if
hours exceed a certain threshold amount.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management is currently determining the most appropriate
and feasible response regarding the above recommendation. However, Manager, Payroll Services will
work with Manager, HRIS to investigate the recommendation further.

35

Implementation: To be determined
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services

G.3 Dock Report (Classification: Low Risk / Process Improvements)
Observation: Dock report is a required exception report that is to be run when processing each bi-
weekly pay and reviewed against employee timesheet to ensure no pay is “docked” if there are
sufficient overtime / sick / personal hours available in the bank. In one instance during testing, an
employee was docked overtime hours because sufficient overtime hours were not available in the bank.
However, during that pay period, employee earned enough overtime hours, par t of which he requested
be paid out immediately. In discussing this issue with the Payroll Administrator, it was unclear as to why
this had occurred unless the dock report was not reviewed or issue was missed during review of the
dock report.
Recommendation: Though it is a requirement to run dock reports before finalizing process, it is also
imperative that the report be reviewed against supporting documentation thoroughly, to ensure issues
as identified above do not occur. Therefore, it is recommended that Management strongly encourage
thorough review of all exception reports, including the dock report. A Senior Payroll Administrator or
Payroll Manager should sign off on exception reports once reviewed, to ensure the process is actually
completed at the staff level.
Additionally, Management should clarify or develop a policy that would state whether overtime hours
earned on current pay are eligible for immediate overtime payout or whether they need to be banked in
the system first before they can be paid out. This process is currently unclear and needs to be consistent
with any Union requirements.
Management Response and Action Plan: Management agrees with the recommendation to thoroughly
review all exception reports including dock reports with sign off by Payroll Manager. In this particular
instance the dock report would not have identified the error. The employee was banking the time in the
same period as taking the time. Both bank and taking are updated after the payroll is calculated. The
current “dock” report will be rerun after the payroll is completed and any time listed will be
communicated to the employee and adjusted on the next pay period.
Although the recommendation of a policy to clarify overtime taken immediately is an excellent
suggestion, the collective agreements define the terms for overtime and banked time off.

Implementation: Dock reports will be run and reviewed immediately.
Accountability: Christine Barry, Manager: Payroll Services