FANews
FANews
RELATED CATEGORIES

Provident fund barred from taking Peter’s contributions to pay Paul

29 August 2024 The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator (OPFA)
Muvhango Lukhaimane

Muvhango Lukhaimane

Yet another employer in the security sector has been taken to task by the Pension Funds Adjudicator for failing to remit all provident fund contributions on the employee’s behalf to the fund.

Muvhango Lukhaimane ordered the employer Vetus Schola Boland (Pty) Ltd to pay arrear contributions plus interest to the Private Security Sector Provident Fund.

Ms Lukhaimane also ordered the fund to allocate contributions to a paying member’s record and not to anyone else, irrespective of whether the employer owes for other members.

The complainant commenced employment on 25 February 2019, until 31 October 2023. As of 27 February 2024, the complainant had a fund credit of R5 343.54.

The complainant submitted that the employer deducted provident fund contributions from her salary without remitting same to the fund. She stated that the fund informed her that the employer made only nine payments in 2019.

The fund said the employer was not compliant in terms of section 13A of the Act. The complainant was registered as its member on 1 March 2019 and had a fund credit of R5 343.54 as of 27 February 2024 representing provident fund contributions for June 2019 to November 2019. The contribution schedule reflected the allocation of contributions to risk and administration expenses for March 2019 to May 2019.

The fund provided a computation which reflected an arrear amount of R39 477.18 for December 2019 to October 2023, plus late payment interest of R18 845.52 calculated up to 22 April 2024.

The employer submitted that all declarations of provident fund contributions had been made to the fund every month. It submitted that it was in arrears with its provident fund contributions due to an error by a third-party supplier where submissions to the fund and deductions from the payroll were not correct, causing a discrepancy in what was paid over.

The employer claimed that the fund informed employees that they were not registered when this was in fact incorrect. It submitted that the fund indicated that it would not accept part payments; any payments made to the fund were allocated to the oldest outstanding contribution record and not to the members. It submitted that it relied on the Adjudicator to assist in instructing the fund administrator to allocate specific funds to specific people to avoid any inconvenience to those members who have left service.

Ms Lukhaimane said an employee entering the private security sector for the first time and an employee who has been out of the sector for more than six months shall be required to wait for a period of four months before joining the fund. An employee with at least four months of uninterrupted service in the private security industry, not necessarily with the same employer, shall join the fund immediately upon joining a new employer.

She said the complainant entered the sector for the first time when she joined the employer on 25 February 2019. Therefore, the employer ought to have paid contributions towards risk and administration expenses for March 2019 to June 2019 and provident fund contributions from July 2019. The submissions indicated that the employer commenced paying provident fund contributions in June 2019. Therefore, the employer was bound by the rules from June 2019.

Ms Lukhaimane said the employer submitted that it was in arrears with its provident fund contributions due to an error by a third-party supplier. However, she said, this was an internal issue with the employer which did not absolve the employer of its duty to pay contributions.

The employer was ordered to pay to the fund the amount of R39 477.18 representing arrear contributions for December 2019 to October 2023. The fund must allocate this amount to the complainant’s record and no one else irrespective of whether the employer owes for other members. It the fund wants outstanding contributions for all members, it must follow its rules and the Act to recover these, instead of piggybacking on the complainant.

The fund also was ordered to compute the amount of late payment interest due on the arrear amount and provide same to the employer for payment. The fund was ordered to pay the complainant the fund credit of R5 343.54 representing provident fund contributions for June 2019 to November 2019.

Quick Polls

QUESTION

The latest salvo in the active versus passive debate suggests that passive has an edge in highly efficient markets, or where the share universe is relatively small. In this context, how do you approach SA Equity investing?

ANSWER

Active always, the experts know best
Active, but favour the smaller funds
Passive for the win
Strike a balance between the two
fanews magazine
FAnews October 2024 Get the latest issue of FAnews

This month's headlines

The township economy: an overlooked insurance market
FSCA regulates crypto assets: a new era for investors
Building trust: one epic client experience at a time
Two-Pot System rollout underlines the value of financial advice
The future looks bright for construction
Subscribe now