I work as an
HR Consultant in a large company (over 2000 staff), a few years ago Payroll moved from
HR to Finance - the justification being that it was a transactional service ("just a more complicated accounts payable service" was essentially the position advanced by the intellectually challenged individual who came up with the idea).
Even though we are physically closely located, the operational relationship has suffered and most importantly we lost direct influence over the
HR Info System. As a result we have limited accurate
HR Metrics available, the payroll functionality has been designed around making it easy to pay people and track in the Financial management system, not around reporting and monitoring what is actually happening (e.g. leave balances, performance reviews, training needs, vacancy management etc).
Also, the Finance team direct the payroll manager what to do and how to do it, often with advice that conflicts with what is in our employment agreements and other provisions (e.g. holiday pay, deductions from wages etc) that are prescribed in law/contracts. This has resulted, on occiasions, in the payroll system and the processing administrators doing what the sytem requires or that Finance tell them to do, rather than doing what the law requires, and has exposed us to a number of risks and created more individual work for the
HR team as we try to track, identify and correct their mistakes once an employee complains to us via the union that payroll have got it wrong again.
Essentially, the argument goes - what do you want your payroll and
HR info system to do? If you just want it to process wages and pay people on time, then let finance manage it as they know about tracking and paying bills. But if you want it to record, monitor and report
HR metrics, and to support the correct application of
HR policy, practice and Law, then leave it with the people who know about those things, and who also have to deal with the fall out when anything goes wrong or when staff are not paid correctly.