Retirement Funds Rivalry, Voluntary Withdrawal of Membership, and Transfer of Assets During the Period of Employment

Clement Marumoagae
{"title":"Retirement Funds Rivalry, Voluntary Withdrawal of Membership, and Transfer of Assets During the Period of Employment","authors":"Clement Marumoagae","doi":"10.47348/SAMLJ/V32/I2A2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Municipal Employees Pension Fund v Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund (Superannuation) & others [2016] 4 All SA 761 (SCA) para 2, Theron JA described the competition for members by different retirement funds associated with the same employer as a ‘turf war’. The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator and the South African courts are continually required to adjudicate disputes that arise when retirement funds wrestle each other for members. This article shows that the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 does not provide the necessary legal framework that can assist courts to resolve these disputes, which usually turn on the interpretation of individual retirement funds’ rules that are often ambiguous. Further, there is no legislative provision that adequately deals with the circumstances where actively employed members voluntarily initiate a process that will lead to their fund credits being transferred to rival retirement funds. It argues that there is a need for legislative clarity on how voluntary transfer of fund credits impact on the membership of retirement funds, particularly given the fact that, strictly speaking, members cannot be transferred from one fund to the next, whereas their fund credits can, in terms of section 14 of the PFA. Since members cannot be transferred, this article evaluates whether it is sound in law for actively employed employees to remain members of one fund but contribute to a rival fund.","PeriodicalId":118675,"journal":{"name":"South African Mercantile Law Journal","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Mercantile Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/SAMLJ/V32/I2A2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Municipal Employees Pension Fund v Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund (Superannuation) & others [2016] 4 All SA 761 (SCA) para 2, Theron JA described the competition for members by different retirement funds associated with the same employer as a ‘turf war’. The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator and the South African courts are continually required to adjudicate disputes that arise when retirement funds wrestle each other for members. This article shows that the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 does not provide the necessary legal framework that can assist courts to resolve these disputes, which usually turn on the interpretation of individual retirement funds’ rules that are often ambiguous. Further, there is no legislative provision that adequately deals with the circumstances where actively employed members voluntarily initiate a process that will lead to their fund credits being transferred to rival retirement funds. It argues that there is a need for legislative clarity on how voluntary transfer of fund credits impact on the membership of retirement funds, particularly given the fact that, strictly speaking, members cannot be transferred from one fund to the next, whereas their fund credits can, in terms of section 14 of the PFA. Since members cannot be transferred, this article evaluates whether it is sound in law for actively employed employees to remain members of one fund but contribute to a rival fund.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
退休基金竞争、自愿退出会员及在受雇期间转移资产
在市政雇员养老基金诉纳塔尔联合市政养老基金(退休金)和其他[2016]4 All SA 761 (SCA)第2段中,Theron JA将与同一雇主相关的不同退休基金对成员的竞争描述为“地盘战争”。养恤基金审裁官办公室和南非法院不断被要求裁决退休基金相互争夺成员时产生的纠纷。本文表明,1956年的《养老基金法案24》没有提供必要的法律框架,可以帮助法院解决这些纠纷,这通常会导致对个人退休基金规则的解释,这些规则往往是模棱两可的。此外,没有任何立法规定充分处理积极就业成员自愿发起将导致其基金信贷转移到竞争对手退休基金的程序的情况。它认为,有必要在立法上明确规定自愿转移基金信贷对退休基金成员的影响,特别是考虑到严格来说,成员不能从一个基金转移到另一个基金,而根据《退休基金管理条例》第14条,他们的基金信贷是可以的。由于会员不能转移,因此本文将对积极就职的职员保留一个基金的会员,但向竞争基金缴纳会费的做法在法律上是否合理进行评价。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Regulation of False Advertising in South Africa: An Analysis of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 and Self-Regulation Case Notes: Interdicting a disciplinary enquiry: Golding v HCI Managerial Services (Pty) Ltd (2015) 36 ILJ 1098 (LC) Revisited Reinstatement in the Context of ‘Deemed Dismissal’: A Critical Analysis of Recent Case Law Accountability in the twin peaks model of financial regulation in South Africa The Impact of Cryptocurrencies on the General Powers and Duties of South African Insolvency Practitioners
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1