Former Shoprite employee denied access to over R2 million pension fund after dismissal for theft
A former Shoprite Checkers employee has been denied his pension fund.
Image: Supplied
A former Shoprite Checkers employee is in a legal battle to access his pension fund after he was dismissed for alleged theft, fraud, and corruption.
Hendrik Johannes Petrus Visser's tenure with the retail giant spanned from January 1999 to June 2018, when his employment was terminated following an employer-led investigation that deemed him guilty of gross dishonesty.
In the wake of his dismissal, Shoprite escalated matters by filing not only criminal charges but also a civil case against him in the Western Cape High Court, seeking recompense that reportedly exceeds R33 million from Visser and several of his co-workers.
The heart of the matter lies in Visser's attempt to withdraw over R2 million from the Retail Provident Fund, a claim that was summarily dismissed, prompting him to seek intervention from the Pension Fund Adjudicator (PFA).
In his appeal to the PFA, Visser expressed that the prolonged withholding of his pension funds had led him to dire financial straits, forcing him to sell his home and personal assets at significantly reduced prices.
According to Visser, the alleged misconduct without a judgment did not justify the withholding of his benefits. He deemed these actions unlawful and sought compensation for what he described as undue hardship during this tumultuous period.
However, the case took a complicated turn when Visser admitted to receiving R220,000 for alleged bookkeeping services rendered to Shoprite outside his scheduled working hours. This arrangement, reportedly made with an IT Manager, raised further suspicions about the integrity of his claims.
More damning, Visser acknowledged under oath that he had accepted monthly bribes of R10,000 from a superior, implicating him in an unlawful scheme that eroded the very foundation of his case.
Upon reviewing the evidence, the PFA ruled against Visser, invoking the provisions of the Pension Funds Act, which permits the Retail Provident Fund to deduct funds for losses incurred due to an employee’s misconduct.
Unyielding, Visser subsequently escalated his case to the Financial Services Tribunal (FST), seeking to overturn the adjudicator's earlier decision.
Presiding over the matter, Judge Malesela Francis Legodi examined the arguments presented and said that by deciding to withhold Visser's provident fund benefits, the adjudicator considered the relevant information provided to it by Shoprite.
Judge Legodi added that the Retail Provident Fund had the discretion to withhold payment of Visser's provident fund benefits. For this, it had to consider the potential prejudice to Visser who may urgently need to access his benefits. However, it also had to consider the interests of the employer to ensure that protection afforded to the employer by law is not rendered hollow and meaningless.
Consequently, Judge Legodi affirmed that the withholding of his pension benefits was justified.
Therefore, Visser’s application for reconsideration was dismissed.