Nested Employee Groups

I'm 9.0 certified and I have never heard that you couldn't nest groups in that version. Was this a Lawson trainer?

Select Employee Group from HR55.1 and then proceed to HR55.3 to include/exclude. Run HR155 as you normally would. You should be fine.

I'm not getting the option anywhere to even reference the employee group as a selection criteria. On the HR55, don't I have to select Employee Group as Criteria/Selction?  It's not an option anywhere as a topic.  Did I miss something?

It was a Lawson trainer, I thought it sounded odd but didn't question it until I realized how much easier my life would be if I could nest some of these groups!

Phil...FOUND IT!!! Thank you so much!  Sometimes it just takes someone pointing out the obvious!

Anytime.

Lawson rebuilds employee groups in alphabetical order, so you want to make sure your subgroups' names come earlier alphabetically.

FYI...I just tested this in 9.0 and do not see an issue requireing a nested group needing to have a name earlier than the "super group" name. My excluded nested group started with a "Z" and my super group started with an "A" - HR155 excuded my Z group EEs.

For those that are interested and that have access to Lawson's Training site there is a WBT that addresses how to optimize employee groups: Optimizing Employees Groups - WPTOPTEMPGRP.  It addresses this issue of nesting employees groups.  In this presentation Lawson does in fact recommend to conform to a naming convention where employee groups that nests other employee groups fall after the nested group.  The logic is that by not doing so that the nested employee group will be empty (contain no employees) at the point that the employee group in which the group is nested is processed.  If not, I have found that I have had to run the HR155 more than once for the groups to be accurate.  It is interesting to note that I have personally spoken with Lawson consultants who have told me that I do not need to do this...but I refer back to the web presentation that says that you have to and the fact that I have indeed ran into problems when I have not.