The Rules of an Occupational Retirement Fund and the Problem of Defaulting Employers: A Reconsideration of Orion Money Purchase Pension Fund (SA) v Pension Funds Adjudicator

T. Nkosi
{"title":"The Rules of an Occupational Retirement Fund and the Problem of Defaulting Employers: A Reconsideration of Orion Money Purchase Pension Fund (SA) v Pension Funds Adjudicator","authors":"T. Nkosi","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2016/V19I0A1663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper reflects on the ongoing challenges presented by certain employers who, whilst deducting occupational retirement fund contributions from their employees' salaries, fail to pay over those contributions to the relevant occupational retirement funds. These employers also often fail to register themselves or their employees as participating members of occupational retirement funds when they are supposed to. Such failures to register with the relevant occupational retirement funds and to pay over fund contributions have disastrous effects on the employees who are at the receiving end of these unlawful practices. This is the case because employees lose the value and use of their salaries through the deductions, and also the benefits of their occupational retirement funds. Although the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 is sufficiently responsive and provides adequate mechanisms to guide against this scourge, it is this paper's argument that occupational retirement funds themselves have not done their bit in enforcing the Pension Funds Act . The failure on the part of the funds to enforce the Pension Funds Act by ensuring that fund contributions are collected from participating employers has resulted in, and continues to result in, untold losses on the part of the employees. Properly considered, the paper submits that the failure by occupational retirement funds to enforce the Pension Funds Act has the potential of unjustifiably limiting several of the employee members' constitutional rights. It is not good enough, so argues the paper, for occupational retirement funds to have rules that prohibit them from paying retirement fund benefits where no contributions have been received. It is also not good enough for courts and the office of the PFA to blindly enforce the rules of occupational retirement funds without consistently subjecting them to the Pension Funds Act and the Constitution for validity and legality. It is on this basis that the case of Orion Money Purchase Pension Fund (SA) v Pension Funds Adjudicator is challenged. The case is authority for the principle that the only available remedy to an employee who has been cheated out of retirement fund benefits owing to the employer's failure to make fund contributions is one that compels the fund to calculate those outstanding contributions and demand that total sum from the employer. For various reasons this does not address the problem of defaulting employers, which can be addressed only by properly enforcing the Pension Funds Act and also consistently subjecting the rules to the Act in cases of disputes.","PeriodicalId":407792,"journal":{"name":"Pension Risk Management eJournal","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pension Risk Management eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2016/V19I0A1663","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper reflects on the ongoing challenges presented by certain employers who, whilst deducting occupational retirement fund contributions from their employees' salaries, fail to pay over those contributions to the relevant occupational retirement funds. These employers also often fail to register themselves or their employees as participating members of occupational retirement funds when they are supposed to. Such failures to register with the relevant occupational retirement funds and to pay over fund contributions have disastrous effects on the employees who are at the receiving end of these unlawful practices. This is the case because employees lose the value and use of their salaries through the deductions, and also the benefits of their occupational retirement funds. Although the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 is sufficiently responsive and provides adequate mechanisms to guide against this scourge, it is this paper's argument that occupational retirement funds themselves have not done their bit in enforcing the Pension Funds Act . The failure on the part of the funds to enforce the Pension Funds Act by ensuring that fund contributions are collected from participating employers has resulted in, and continues to result in, untold losses on the part of the employees. Properly considered, the paper submits that the failure by occupational retirement funds to enforce the Pension Funds Act has the potential of unjustifiably limiting several of the employee members' constitutional rights. It is not good enough, so argues the paper, for occupational retirement funds to have rules that prohibit them from paying retirement fund benefits where no contributions have been received. It is also not good enough for courts and the office of the PFA to blindly enforce the rules of occupational retirement funds without consistently subjecting them to the Pension Funds Act and the Constitution for validity and legality. It is on this basis that the case of Orion Money Purchase Pension Fund (SA) v Pension Funds Adjudicator is challenged. The case is authority for the principle that the only available remedy to an employee who has been cheated out of retirement fund benefits owing to the employer's failure to make fund contributions is one that compels the fund to calculate those outstanding contributions and demand that total sum from the employer. For various reasons this does not address the problem of defaulting employers, which can be addressed only by properly enforcing the Pension Funds Act and also consistently subjecting the rules to the Act in cases of disputes.
职业退休基金的规则与违约雇主的问题:对猎户货币购买养老基金(SA)诉养老基金裁决者案的再思考
本文件反映某些雇主在雇员薪金中扣除职业退休基金供款的同时,未能向有关的职业退休基金缴付该等供款所带来的挑战。这些雇主也常常没有按照规定将自己或雇员登记为职业退休基金的参与成员。这种不向有关的职业退休基金登记和不缴纳基金供款的情况,对处于这些非法行为接收端的雇员造成了灾难性的影响。这是因为员工通过扣减失去了工资的价值和用途,也失去了职业退休基金的好处。尽管1956年的第24号《养老基金法》(Pension Funds Act 24)做出了充分的回应,并提供了足够的机制来指导应对这一祸害,但本文认为,职业退休基金本身在执行《养老基金法》方面并没有尽自己的一份力。基金方面未能执行《养恤基金法》,未能确保从参与的雇主那里收取基金缴款,这给雇员造成了难以估量的损失,并将继续造成这种损失。经过适当考虑,本文认为,职业退休基金未能执行《养老基金法》,可能会不合理地限制雇员的几项宪法权利。这篇论文认为,职业退休基金制定规定,禁止在没有收到捐款的情况下支付退休基金福利,这是不够的。法院和财经处不遵守《年基金法》和《宪法》的效力和合法性,一味地执行职业退休基金的规定,也是不妥当的。正是在此基础上,猎户座货币购买养老基金(SA)诉养老基金裁决机构案受到质疑。这一案件证明了下述原则的权威:对于因雇主未向退休基金供款而被骗走退休基金福利的雇员,唯一可用的补救办法是迫使该基金计算未缴供款,并要求雇主支付总额。由于各种原因,这并没有解决雇主违约的问题,这个问题只能通过适当执行《养恤基金法》来解决,并在发生纠纷时始终使规则服从《养恤基金法》。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信