- Sibisi Conveyor Products argued that an employee agreed through WhatsApp messages to stop provident fund deductions.
- The Financial Services Tribunal ruled the employee never lawfully withdrew from the provident fund while still employed.
- The tribunal found that informal agreements between employers and employees cannot override pension fund rules.
Sibisi Conveyor Products has lost its attempt to overturn a ruling ordering it to pay outstanding provident fund contributions after the Financial Services Tribunal found that WhatsApp discussions between the company and an employee did not lawfully remove the employee from the provident fund.
The dispute involved former employee Gustav Oosthuizen, who continued working for the company after provident fund contributions stopped in March 2024.
The company approached the tribunal seeking to challenge a determination issued by the Pension Funds Adjudicator in May 2025. The adjudicator had ruled that the company remained liable for unpaid provident fund contributions and interest after finding that Oosthuizen had never properly withdrawn from the provident fund. Judge LTC Harms and KD Magano dismissed the reconsideration application on 19 May 2026.
Company claimed employee wanted deductions stopped
Sibisi Conveyor Products argued that Oosthuizen no longer wanted provident fund deductions to be taken from his salary because he could not afford them.
According to the company, WhatsApp exchanges between Oosthuizen and the company’s former chief executive officer showed that the parties had agreed to stop the deductions and effectively remove him from the fund.
The company also argued that the adjudicator wrongly treated the matter as one involving compulsory membership under the fund rules instead of a simple agreement between employer and employee about salary deductions.
It further claimed that certain deductions made before Oosthuizen officially became a member of the provident fund had already been refunded to him.
The tribunal noted that the company accepted that contributions had been paid on Oosthuizen’s behalf between January 2024 and March 2024 after he became a member of the fund. The real dispute was whether the company could stop paying contributions while Oosthuizen remained employed.
Tribunal says WhatsApp messages did not remove employee from fund
The tribunal found that the company’s case failed because there was no lawful withdrawal from the provident fund in terms of the fund rules.
There was no signed withdrawal form, no election document completed by Oosthuizen, and no communication from the provident fund confirming that his membership had been terminated.
Magano wrote, “The WhatsApp exchanges relied upon by the applicant do not alter that position. At their highest, those exchanges reflect discussions concerning the deductions appearing on the first respondent’s remuneration and the affordability of those deductions.”
The tribunal said the messages showed discussions about money pressures and salary deductions, but did not amount to a valid withdrawal from the provident fund itself. Magano wrote, “The exchanges do not, however, constitute a withdrawal from membership in terms of the rules.”
The ruling stressed that Clause 3.6 of the fund rules specifically prohibited members from withdrawing from the provident fund while they remained employed unless the rules expressly allowed it.
The tribunal also pointed to Section 13 of the Pension Funds Act, which makes pension fund rules legally binding on employers, employees and the fund itself. Magano wrote, “Membership of a pension fund is governed by the rules of the fund, which bind both the employer and the member.”
The tribunal found that even if Oosthuizen intended to stop contributing to the provident fund, any withdrawal still had to comply with the formal requirements of the fund rules.
Employer’s procedural fairness complaint rejected
Sibisi Conveyor Products also argued that the proceedings before the Pension Funds Adjudicator were procedurally unfair because correspondence relating to the complaint had allegedly been sent to an email address that was either no longer monitored or did not reach the relevant people in the company.
The tribunal rejected this argument. The judges pointed out that the final determination had been sent to the same email address and had successfully reached the company because it later filed the reconsideration application.
The tribunal found the company could not explain why earlier correspondence supposedly failed to reach it while the final ruling reached it without difficulty.
The tribunal further explained that reconsideration proceedings allowed it to fully reconsider the record and any additional material properly placed before it, meaning the company still had the opportunity to present its case.
After reviewing the evidence, the tribunal concluded there was no factual or legal basis to interfere with the Pension Funds Adjudicator’s ruling. The reconsideration application was dismissed.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
