Hello HRMS Aces,

In R12, we have built rules for the Absence Management approval process to enforce the following behaviour: -

1. When an employee enters an Absence for themselves in Employee Self Service, approval only goes to the direct Supervisor and no higher.
2. If the employee has a missing Supervisor then the approval is the routed to a specific HR Manager.
3. If the employee has a terminated Supervisor then the approval is the routed to the same specific HR Manager as in 2.

With the use of three AME rules, I have been able to enforce scenario 1 and 2. However, despite building an appropriate rule for the Terminated Supervisor scenario and fully verifying that the conditions are met for this rule to fire and by using the same custom action to route to the appropriate HR Manager (the same one successfully used in scenario 2), the approval is still failing because it is still traversing up the Supervisor Hierarchy and erroring on the terminated Supervisor.

It seems that it is ignoring this rule all together and still traversing up the Supervisor hierarchy. We have found that it fails as well even if the Manager's Manager has been terminated.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Hi
Have you used the AME Test Workbench feature to verify that it is executing the rules in the order you require?

Additionally, have you also ensured that your rule conditions are only valid for the specific rule you are trying to enforce.
I have encountered issues before where my conditions have not been tight enough to restrict to a single rule, and so AME has effectively been able to use more than one rule.

Regards
Barry

Hi Barry,

When I use test workbench expecting to see what rules fire, only an error message appears at the top of the screen which says something to the effect that the person_id of the terminated manager is not available. The remainder of the screen is blank. This leads me to think that it is traversing up the Supervisor Hierarchy even before it decides which rules apply.

If it were using another rule then surely that would appear in the results of the Test Workbench? Or perhaps while accessing another rule which traverses up the Supervisor Hierarchy it fails but does not handle it as an exception to produce the failure.

Regards,
Misbah