A former security guard of Vetus Schola K9 & Training Pty Ltd approached Paarl Post with allegations against the firm relating to provident fund pay-out issues.

The former employee, Joseph*, said he had received a smaller pay-out from the provident fund, while the firm’s Human Resources Manager in an official letter stated he would get more.

Joseph submitted another complaint on behalf of another former employee’s family.

This complaint was based on a document from the Pension Fund Adjudicator (PFA) that investigated an unpaid claim from N Pokolo’s provident fund, following her death around August of 2020.

Joseph explained he was employed by Vetus Schola from 4 October 2017 to 26 January 2022 and was dismissed on grounds of “site misconduct”, which he believes was a ruse used by the firm to “get rid of him”.

“Vetus Schola said they fired me because of site misconduct, but they used that as an excuse to get rid of me because I stood up for my rights,” he explained in regard to his provident fund contributions, or rather, lack of it.

To verify his fund claim, he showed an official letter from Vetus Schola, which stated a total contribution for the provident fund for the period August 2019 to November 2021 was R18 612,52.

Joseph, however, alleged that only an amount of R11 967 of the total promised was paid. Documents supporting this claim were provided.

In the case of N Pokolo’s provident fund that was owed to the beneficiaries of the fund (her sister), in case of her death, the company failed to pay out to the family.

Pokolo was employed at Vetus Schola from 18 November 2017 until her death on 1 August 2020.

On 4 November 2021 her fund credit was R24 230,01, yet no death benefit was paid out following her death.

Vetus Schola’s legal representative Attorney Barend Kellerman, responded to these allegations.

He first provided context for Vetus Schola, saying its workforce consists of more than 800 employees and because of this there is a large amount of administration involved in managing the payroll, taxes, and all the issues pertaining to PAYE, UIF and pension/provident fund benefits.

For this reason, he said the administration is often outsourced to third-party service providers who specialise in managing these aspects of the payroll.

“Unfortunately, it recently transpired that one such sub-contractor miscalculated the provident fund benefits that were due to the Private Security Sector Provident Fund over a period of 18 months.

“The contract with this service provider was terminated immediately. Our client now deals with the administration of the contributions itself.”

Kellerman added his client takes the issue from the mistakes made by this contractor extremely seriously and, since discovering the problem, has been working tirelessly to resolve it.

“Fortunately, the problems arising from the maladministration of the provident fund benefits have only affected a few employees,” he said. “Our client has identified approximately 20 such cases.”

He confirmed this also affected Pokolo’s pay-out.

“Despite the challenges it faces, my client has always assured each and every of its employees that it will assist it in the processing of its claims for provident fund benefits and, if in the limited instances where contributions have not been made, they will be made.

“…[Our] client has given effect to every directive contained in the determination of the Pension Funds Adjudicator in the matter involving Pokolo.”

Kellerman was unable to confirm whether Joseph’s case was similarly affected since he wished to remain anonymous during this investigation. But his client has a suspicion of who the complainant is.

“If [so], it is the same person who, on being informed of his dismissal, threatened the life of the person who conveyed the news of his dismissal to him.

“This former employee is set to appear in Paarl Magistrates’ Court on 9 March because of the threats issued by him on being dismissed. This may also be the same person who is arranging an unprotected strike.

“The problems with the provident fund payments do not affect him at all, as far as our client is aware.”