A quirk in the 2004 calendar (leap year) is causing some employers with biweekly payrolls to have 27 pay periods instead of the normal 26 for the year, prompting some to reduce each biweekly paycheck.

The anomaly also affects some employers who pay weekly, giving them 53 pay periods in 2004 instead of the normal 52.

Instead of dividing the annual salary by the normal number of pay periods (26 or 52) to compute each check, should the employer divide the yearly wage figure by the actual number of pay dates in the year (27 or 53)? But is that overpaying employees?

Or, should the formula and the checks remain the same, not counting changes dictated by salary adjustments, deductions and other matters unrelated to the number of pay periods?

All hourly employees must be paid as normal under the law. Workers paid monthly, semimonthly, and workers paid biweekly but who have no check due on Jan. 1 or Jan. 2, won’t be affected by the calendar quirk and will have the usual number of paychecks for the year.

Looking to the future, organizations should recognize that the extra payroll issue looms periodically and they should set policies – and budgets – that recognize the anomalies and prepare for them.

Employers that do reduce checks in years with additional pay periods need to communicate the reasons clearly to employees in advance of the change – and HR people should be involved.