Update March 2020

23 March 2020

20 March 2020  English

Following our open invitation to pensioners to attend a meeting at the offices of Geyser & Coetzee Attorneys on 9 March 2020 we hereby summarise the questions arising from these meetings attended by 10 pensioners in order to appraise pensioners of the discussions and some uncertainties that the pensioners may still have.

The responses to these questions are the responses of Geyser and Coetzee, acting in the capacity of the legal representatives of the class, and are not the responses of Transnet, the Transport Pension Fund, the Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund or their respective advisers.


1. Who will benefit from the settlement?

a) Essentially, the benefit enhancements contemplated by the settlement will only be paid to the  pensioners of the Transport Pension Fund and the Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund at the time the benefit enhancements are provided. In other words, if you are not entitled to a pension from one of those two funds on the relevant date, you are not entitled to benefit from the settlement. 

b)  For this purpose, pensioners include both previous employees and persons who receive a pension as a result of being a dependant of a previous employee.

c)  Contributing members of the Transport Pension Fund will benefit from the enhanced pension increase policy when they start to receive their pension.This aspect was fully addressed in a post on the Geyser and Coetzee website during August 2014. You will note this message is also on our posting of 25 August 2014 and note that these are the only people that will benefit and are bound by the terms of the settlement once made an order of court.


2. If my parents are both deceased and no pensioner beneficiary/dependant is involved what    amount will be due to the estate?

In terms of the settlement agreement no payment will be due to the estate of a pensioner.


3. Will I be entitled to a part of the money that Capitec was recently ordered to pay to the pension fund? 

a) The money that was recovered by the Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund forms part of the fund’s assets from which the payments to pensioners are made. Pensioners are only entitled to the benefits in terms of the rules of the fund. The assets in the pension funds (including any assets recovered by the fund from Regiments) do not belong to the pensioners and will be administered in accordance with the pension rules to the benefit of all the current and future pensioners. A pensioner is not entitled to more pension than what was calculated according to his or her years of service and income at time of retirement.

b)  This is what makes this settlement so important as it now would allow the pension funds to award increases not limited to the 2% as provided for in the pension rules, but rather to allow for larger increases based on affordability in the fund. 


4. We want to divide the balance of the money in the fund in equal shares, can we insist on division of the pension fund?

The money in the pension funds does not belong to the individual pensioners and the law does not allow such division.


5. The pensioner elected trustees are not looking after the interests of the pensioners, they are supposed to further our case against the funds:

It is not correct to say that pensioner elected trustees should “further our case against the funds”. They owe their duties to the funds on whose boards they serve, not to the pensioners that elected them. For example, Rule 5(5) of the pension fund rules of the Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund provides as follows:

“(5) The duty of the chairperson, members of the Board of Trustees and their alternates towards the Fund shall be of a fiduciary nature and they shall, when acting in such capacities, act only in the interests of the Fund, to the exclusion of all other considerations or objectives. The chairperson, members of the Board of Trustees and their alternates shall also act in good faith towards all of the stakeholders in the Fund including Pensioners, Beneficiaries, Special Pensioners and Transnet. 


6. Why did a trustee sign the settlement agreement?

The settlement agreement was signed by all of the parties’ duly authorised representatives. The parties to the settlement agreement include the Transport Pension Fund and the Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund. The trustees that signed the settlement agreement did so as representative of the pension fund of which they are a trustee. We understand that they did so with the approval and authority of the boards of the relevant pension funds.


7. When will I get my increase?

a) It is currently envisaged that this will occur within two months after the settlement has been made an order of court. 

b) This assumes that the other conditions to the settlement agreement do not delay its implementation.


8. I did my own calculations and I do not agree with the figures you provided 

Three actuaries investigated the financial effect of the settlement and independently came to the conclusion that this is a reasonable and affordable settlement with which all legal teams agreed. The pensioners will be at least 31% better off after the full implementation of the settlement agreement. This percentage is arrived at without taking into consideration the 3 special bonuses of R10 000 each per pensioner. 


9. What happened to the surpluses in the fund following the passing of pensioners since the beginning of the litigation?

a) The surpluses remain in the Fund and are utilised to fund the payment of pensions and bonuses.


10. Why are the pensioners obliged to access the internet for information regarding the settlement agreement when they do not have access to internet?

a) The court order provides for the various ways in which the settlement agreement and the contents of the agreement is disseminated to interested parties. It is understood and accepted that not all pensioners have access to internet. Notices have been published in a number of newspapers and on social media and sent directly to pensioners either by email and/or post. 


11. . We are entitled to file our objections in the way we deem appropriate and which shall be acceptable for the judge and not as prescribed by the legal team.


a) Class action litigation jurisprudence requires the objections to be filed as prescribed by the court order.

b)  The requirements are those of the court order granted by the judge and not the legal teams.


12. Why are we obliged to file our objections in the prescribed form as set out in the order of court as the legal team will have the advantage of seeing the contents thereof and opposing our objections?

a) This is part of the rule of law principle that the other parties to the dispute also have the opportunity to consider and reply to any objection. This type of legal procedure has been used so that class members have had the opportunity to see and consider the settlement agreement, have a chance to object, and will also see the other parties’ replies to their objections It is not trial by ambush..

b) The important point is that the court must have had the opportunity to read all of the parties’ arguments before the court hearing. It is the court’s task to decide whether to approve the settlement agreement as binding on all members of the class after taking into consideration all the parties’ arguments before it.


13. Why did the legal team involve Mr Dunn in the settlement process?

a) Mr Dunn is a trustee of the TSDBF. 

b) He was never involved in the settlement negotiations on behalf of the TSDBF or present at any meeting between the legal team representing the class and Transnet or the Funds’ attorneys.

c) Mr Dunn signed the agreement in his capacity as the duly authorised signatory of the TSDBF because he was mandated by the board of the TSDBF to do so.


14. Why were the bonuses summarily taken away without any financial substitute?

a) This was not the case. Bonuses are discretionary in nature and may be withheld or granted in accordance with the rules of the relevant fund, which include considerations of the affordability of granting of any bonuses.


15.  Who will in future monitor the trustees to ensure that they comply with their mandate of the pensioners?

a) The trustees are by law required to fulfil their fiduciary duties towards the funds and cannot legally accept mandates from pensioners in order to subvert their fiduciary duty.


16. Why are we not entitled to information regarding meetings of trustees and why are we not entitled to copies of the minutes of such meetings?

a) This is not part of the class action.

b)  The pensioners are advised to liaise with Momentum- the pension fund administrator in order to get clarity on their concerns.


17. Why are the trustees of the fund members of the legal team?

a) The trustees have never been part of the legal team. The funds have had their own attorneys.


18. Why is there a clause in the settlement agreement which prevents further legal action against Transnet and other parties?

a) This is a standard provision in a settlement agreement so that it is clear that there is full and final settlement of the particular claims as raised in the summons.

b) The settlement agreement fully and finally disposes of all of the underlying claims and disputes that gave rise to the class action


19. Why was the settlement concluded in secret and thereafter forced upon the pensioners?

a) This was not the case. The settlement agreement was concluded after numerous meetings and negotiations. The legal team to the class was at all times open about the fact that negotiations were being conducted by the legal teams. It is furthermore not appropriate to discuss settlement negotiations whilst such negotiations are conducted. The financial terms were published in July 2019.


20. If the settlement is accepted the pensioners will be worse off than before the settlement agreement.

a) This is incorrect. The net effect of the settlement agreement is that on average the pensioners will experience a 31% increase in their pension benefits. 


21. Is the 2% rule abolished with the implementation of the settlement agreement

a) No. The 2% remains part of the rules of the funds but the rules will be amended to provide for additional increases where these are affordable and approved.


22. Why did the pensioners not receive the first increase (2%+11%) in terms of the settlement agreement in 2019?

a) The increases in terms of the settlement agreement can only be implemented when the rules have been amended and the settlement agreement has been approved by the court.


23. Why can the pension funds not be dissolved and each pensioner can then administer his or her own funds?

a) This is not part of the class action.

b) This is legally not possible in terms of the rules of the fund. It will be financially extremely detrimental to a large number of pensioners if such step is taken.


24. Why can each pensioner not receive at least R2m as part of the settlement agreement?

This is legally and financially not permissible. 


25. Why were pensioners not consulted individually prior to the settlement being concluded?

Pensioners were afforded the opportunity to opt out following the certification of the class action. By its nature class actions do not cater for individual consultation as it is simply impossible to engage with all the pensioners. This is why the members of the class were represented by Mr Kwapa and Mr Pretorius.


26. Why were pensioners not furnished with the settlement agreement prior to the court order being granted on 18 February 2020?

a) The commercial terms were communicated to all pensioners prior to the 18 February court order being granted. The detailed settlement was only finalised shortly prior to the court date and has been communicated in full pursuant to the court granting an order setting out how the details of the settlement are to be published and allowing time for class members to raise concerns. The 18 February court order did not approve the settlement agreement or make it binding on the class members, those are decisions for the court to make at or after the next court hearing.


27. Why did the legal team not obtain proxies/power of attorney from pensioners prior to the settlement agreement being concluded?

a) See the answer to paragraph 25 and 26 above.


28. What is the result if the settlement is opposed on 14 April 2020?

a)  This will cause a postponement of the matter to 17 June 2020.

b) If the opposition is successful, the settlement agreement will not be implemented and pensioners will not receive the pension increases or future lump sum payments contemplated by the settlement agreement.


29. What is the result if the settlement is not made an order of court on 17 June 2020?

a) There could be a further postponement if all the objections cannot be finalised in one day. This could mean that the matter will be delayed. The legal team is of the view that it will be difficult to have this matter finalised and implemented in 2020 as various legal practitioners will have to be available on that specific date or dates. The date of 17 June 2020 has been agreed upon and is part of the court order. It is important to note that one of the factors that was considered on behalf of the pensioners during the negotiation process was the average age of the pensioners and the effect that delays and protracted litigation and appeal processes would entail. The delay will seriously disadvantage all pensioners as they will not have the benefit of better pensions.


30. Will my personal circumstances be a valid objection to the settlement agreement being finalised?

a)  The court order provides that any member of the class and any interested persons who wish to participate in the hearing may address the court on the reasonableness, fairness, adequacy and sustainability of the settlement agreement. 


b) The court will give due regard to the merits of all objections brought before it in making any determination on the reasonableness, fairness, adequacy and sustainability of the settlement agreement.

31. What will happen if the settlement agreement is finally not made an order of court?

a) The pension increases and lump sum awards under the settlement agreement will then not be paid.

b) The plaintiffs will have to apply for a court date which matter will be set down for a term which may be in 2021/2022 subject to availability. The pensioners also need to bear in mind that either party might ask for leave to appeal, special leave to appeal later on and an appeal might follow which can take another year or two to finalise with no guarantees of better pensions. During the time of litigation none of the benefits of the settlement agreement will be implemented and the pensioners will run the risk of being responsible not only for the own legal teams’ costs but also for the costs of the two opposing parties.


32. Why are pensioners of the funds opposing the settlement agreement ?

a) There are a number of pensioners who have accepted really bad advice in respect to the settlement agreement. It cannot be overemphasised the court will not and cannot improve on the terms of the settlement agreement. It should be emphasised that personal objections such as “I am entitled to a better life” or “Transnet is obliged to give me a better life” or “ our husbands have worked for 40 years and therefore I am entitled to a better life” will not be taken in consideration by the court and will simply delay the process to the detriment of all pensioners.

Contact

Update Maart 2020

23 Maart 2020

23 Maart 2020 

Na ons ope uitnodiging aan pensioenarisse om 'n vergadering by die kantoor van Geyser & Coetzee Prokureurs op 9 Maart 2020 by te woon, som ons die vrae wat uit hierdie vergaderings wat deur 10 pensioenarisse bygewoon is,op, om die pensioenarisse in te lig ten opsigte van die besprekingspunte  en  onduidelikhede  wat die pensioenarisse steeds mag hê.


Die antwoorde op hierdie vrae is die antwoorde van Geyser en Coetzee, wat optree in die hoedanigheid as die regsverteenwoordigers van die klas, en is nie die antwoorde van Transnet, die Transport Pensioenfonds, die Transnet Tweede Vastevoordeelfonds of hul onderskeie adviseurs nie.


1. Wie sal baat vind by die skikking?

a) In wese sal die voordeleverbeterings wat deur die skikking beoog word, slegs betaal word aan die pensioenarisse van die Transport pensioenfonds en die Transnet Tweede Vastevoordeelfonds op die tydstip waarop die voordeelverbeterings voorsien word. Met ander woorde, as u nie op die betrokke datum op een van die twee fondse geregtig is op 'n pensioen nie, is u nie geregtig op die skikkings voordele nie.

b) Vir hierdie doel sluit dit pensioenarisse sowel as vorige werknemers en persone in wat 'n pensioen ontvang as 'n afhanklike van 'n vorige werknemer.

c) Bydraende lede van die Transport pensioenfonds sal voordeel trek uit die verhoogde pensioenverhogingsbeleid wanneer hulle hul pensioen begin ontvang. Hierdie aspek is volledig bespreek in 'n pos op die Geyser en Coetzee-webwerf gedurende Augustus 2014. U sal daarop let dat hierdie boodskap ook op ons boodskap van 25 Augustus 2014 betrekkking het en let daarop dat dit die enigste mense is wat baat sal vind by en gebonde sal wees aan die bepalings van die skikking sodra dit 'n bevel van die hof gemaak is.


2. As my ouers albei oorlede is en geen pensioenaris begunstigde of afhanklike is betrokke nie, watter bedrag sal aan die boedel verskuldig wees?

Ingevolge die skikkingsooreenkoms is daar geen betaling verskuldig aan die boedel van 'n pensioenaris nie.


3. Sal ek geregtig wees op 'n deel van die geld wat Capitec onlangs beveel is om aan die pensioenfonds te betaal?

a) Die geld wat deur die Transnet Tweede Vastevoordeelfonds verhaal is, vorm deel van die fonds se bates waaruit die betalings aan pensioenarisse gemaak word. Pensioenarisse is slegs geregtig op die voordele ingevolge die reëls van die fonds. Die bates in die pensioenfondse (met inbegrip van enige bates wat deur die fonds verhaal is uit Regiment) behoort nie aan die pensioenarisse nie en word volgens die pensioenreëls geadministreer tot voordeel van alle huidige en toekomstige pensioenarisse. 'N Pensioenaris is nie geregtig op meer pensioen as wat bereken is volgens sy of haar diensjare en inkomste tydens aftrede nie.

b) Dit is wat hierdie skikking so belangrik maak, aangesien dit nou die pensioenfondse toelaat om verhogings toe te ken, nie beperk tot die 2% soos in die pensioenreëls bepaal nie, maar eerder groter verhogings moontlik maak op grond van die bekostigbaarheid in die fonds.


4.  Ons wil die balans van die geld in die fonds in gelyke dele verdeel, kan ons aandring op die verdeling van die pensioenfonds?

Die geld in die pensioenfondse behoort nie aan die individuele pensioenarisse nie en die reg laat nie so n verdeling toe nie.


5. Die pensioenaris-verkose trustees sorg nie vir die belange van die pensioenarisse nie, hulle is veronderstel om ons saak teen die fondse te bevorder.

Dit is nie korrek om te sê dat pensioenaris-verkose trustees “ons saak teen die fondse moet bevorder nie”. Hulle verpligtinge is teenoor die fondse op wie se direksies hulle dien, nie aan die pensioenarisse wat hulle verkies het nie. Byvoorbeeld, reël 5 (5) van die pensioenfondsreëls van die Transnet Tweede Vastevoordeelfonds bepaal soos volg:

“(5) Die plig van die voorsitter, lede van die Raad van Trustees en hul plaasvervangers teenoor die Fonds is fidusiêre van aard en sal, wanneer hulle in sulke hoedanighede optree, slegs optree in belang van die Fonds tot uitsluiting van alle ander oorwegings of doelstellings. Die voorsitter, lede van die Raad van Trustees en hul plaasvervangers sal ook te goeder trou optree teenoor al die belanghebbendes in die Fonds, insluitend pensioenarisse, begunstigdes, spesiale pensioenarisse en Transnet.


6. Waarom het 'n trustee die skikkingsooreenkoms onderteken?

Die skikkingsooreenkoms is deur al die gemagtigde verteenwoordigers van die partye onderteken. Die partye by die skikkingsooreenkoms sluit die Transpoert pensioenfonds en die Transnet Tweede Vastevoordeelfonds in. Die trustees wat die skikkingsooreenkoms onderteken het, het dit gedoen as verteenwoordigers van die pensioenfonds waarvan hulle 'n trustee is. Ons verstaan ​​dat hulle dit gedoen het met die goedkeuring en gesag van die direksies van die betrokke pensioenfondse.


7. Wanneer kry ek my verhoging?

a) Daar word tans voorsien dat dit binne twee maande nadat die skikking 'n bevel van die hof gemaak is, sal plaasvind.

b) Dit aanvaar dat die ander voorwaardes vir die skikkingsooreenkoms nie die implementering daarvan vertraag nie.


8. Ek het my eie berekeninge gedoen en stem nie saam met die syfers wat u verskaf het nie.

Drie aktuarisse het die finansiële effek van die skikking ondersoek en onafhanklik tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat dit 'n redelike en bekostigbare skikking is waarmee alle regspanne saamgestem het. Die pensioenarisse sal ten minste 31% beter af wees ná die volle implementering van die skikkingsooreenkoms. Die persentasie word bereik sonder om die drie spesiale bonusse van R10 000 per pensioenaris in ag te neem.


9. Wat het gebeur met die surplus in die fonds ná die afsterwe van pensioenarisse sedert die begin van die litigasie?

a) Die surplus bly in die Fonds en word gebruik om pensioen en bonusse te betaal.


10. Waarom is die pensioenarisse verplig om toegang tot die internet te kry vir inligting rakende die skikkingsooreenkoms wanneer hulle nie toegang tot die internet het nie?

a) Die hofbevel maak voorsiening vir die verskillende maniere waarop die skikkingsooreenkoms en die inhoud van die ooreenkoms aan belanghebbende partye versprei word. Dit word verstaan ​​en aanvaar dat nie alle pensioenarisse toegang tot die internet het nie. Kennisgewings is in 'n aantal koerante en op sosiale media gepubliseer en word direk per e-pos en / of per pos aan pensioenarisse gestuur.


11.. Ons is geregtig om ons besware in te dien op die wyse wat ons toepaslik ag en wat vir die regter aanvaarbaar sal wees en nie soos deur die regspan voorgeskryf nie.

a) Jurisprudensie in klasaksie-litigasie vereis dat die besware ingedien moet word soos voorgeskryf deur die hofbevel.

b) Die vereiste is dié van die hofbevel wat deur die regter toegestaan ​​is en nie die regspanne nie.


12. Waarom is ons verplig om ons besware in die voorgeskrewe vorm in die hofbevel voor te lê, aangesien die regsspan die voordeel sal hê om die inhoud daarvan te sien en ons besware teen te staan?

a) Dit is deel van die beginsel van geregtigheid dat die ander partye in die dispuut ook die geleentheid het om enige besware te oorweeg en daarop te antwoord. Hierdie tipe regsprosedure is gebruik sodat die klaslede die geleentheid gehad het om die skikkingsooreenkoms te sien en te oorweeg, die kans te kry om beswaar te maak, en ook die antwoorde van die ander partye op hul besware sal sien. Dit is nie 'n hinderlaag nie.

b) Die belangrike punt is dat die hof voor die verhoor die geleentheid moes gehad het om al die argumente van die partye te lees. Dit is die taak van die hof om te besluit of die skikkingsooreenkoms as bindend is vir alle lede van die klas, na inagneming van al die partye se argumente daarvoor.


13. Waarom het die regspan mnr. Dunn by die skikkingsproses betrek?

a) Mnr Dunn is 'n trustee van die TSDBF.

b) Hy was nooit namens die TSDBF by die skikkingsonderhandelinge betrokke  of by 'n vergadering tussen die regspan wat die klas en Transnet of die Fonds se prokureurs verteenwoordig het nie.

c) Mnr. Dunn het die ooreenkoms onderteken in sy hoedanigheid as die behoorlik gemagtigde ondertekenaar van die TSDBF, omdat hy deur die raad van die TSDBF opdrag gegee is om dit te doen.


14. Waarom is die bonusse summier weggeneem sonder enige finansiële plaasvervanger?

a) Dit was nie die geval nie. Bonusse is van nature diskresionêr en kan weerhou of toegestaan ​​word in ooreenstemming met die reëls van die betrokke fonds, wat die oorweging van die bekostigbaarheid van die toekenning van bonusse insluit.


15. Wie sal in die toekoms die trustees monitor om seker te maak dat hulle hul mandaat van die pensioenarisse nakom?

a) Die trustees is volgens wet verplig om hul fidusiêre pligte teenoor die fondse na te kom en kan nie mandate van pensioenarisse wettig aanvaar om hul fidusiêre plig te ondermyn nie.


16. Waarom is ons nie geregtig op inligting rakende trusteevergaderings nie, en waarom is ons nie geregtig op afskrifte van die notules van sulke vergaderings nie?

a) Dit is nie deel van die klasaksie nie.

b) Die pensioenarisse word aangeraai om met Momentum- die pensioenfondsadministrateur te skakel om duidelikheid te kry oor hul kommer.


17. Waarom is die trustees van die fonds lede van die regspan?

a) Die trustees was nog nooit deel van die regspan nie. Die fondse het hul eie prokureurs.


18. Waarom is daar 'n klousule in die skikkingsooreenkoms wat verdere regstappe teen Transnet en ander partye verhinder?

a) Dit is 'n standaardbepaling in 'n skikkingsooreenkoms, sodat dit duidelik is dat daar 'n volledige en finale beslegting is van die besondere eise soos in die dagvaarding geopper.

b) Die skikkingsooreenkoms beeindig ten volle en finaal , alle onderliggende eise en geskille, wat in die klasaksie ontstaan het.


19. Waarom is die skikking in die geheim gesluit en daarna op die pensioenarisse af gedwing?

a) Dit was nie die geval nie. Die skikkingsooreenkoms is gesluit ná talle vergaderings en onderhandelinge. Die regspan vir die klas was te alle tye oop oor die feit dat onderhandelinge deur die regspanne gevoer is. Dit is verder nie gepas om skikkingsonderhandelinge te bespreek terwyl sulke onderhandelinge gevoer word nie. Die finansiële terme is in Julie 2019 reeds gepubliseer.


20. As die skikking aanvaar word, sal die pensioenarisse slegter daaraan toe wees as voor die skikkingsooreenkoms.

a) Dit is verkeerd. Die netto effek van die skikkingsooreenkoms is dat die pensioenarisse gemiddeld 'n styging van 31% in hul pensioenvoordele sal ontvang.


21. Is die reël van 2% afgeskaf met die implementering van die skikkingsooreenkoms?

a) Nee. Die 2% bly 'n deel van die reëls van die fondse, maar die reëls sal gewysig word om voorsiening te maak vir addisionele verhogings waar dit bekostigbaar en goedgekeur is.


22. Waarom het die pensioenarisse nie die eerste verhoging (2% + 11%) ingevolge die skikkingsooreenkoms in 2019 ontvang nie?

a) Die verhogings ingevolge die skikkingsooreenkoms kan slegs geïmplementeer word wanneer die reëls gewysig is en die skikkingsooreenkoms deur die hof goedgekeur is.


23. Waarom kan die pensioenfondse nie ontbind word nie en elke pensioenaris kan dan sy eie fondse administreer?

a) Dit is nie deel van die klasaksie nie.

b) Dit is wettiglik nie moontlik in terme van die reëls van die fonds nie. Dit sal finansieel buitengewoon nadelig wees vir 'n groot aantal pensioenarisse as sulke stappe geneem word.


24. Waarom kan elke pensioenaris nie ten minste R2 miljoen ontvang as deel van die skikkingsooreenkoms nie?

Dit is wetlik en finansieel nie toelaatbaar nie.


25. Waarom is pensioenarisse nie afsonderlik geraadpleeg voordat die skikking gesluit is nie?

Pensioenarisse het die geleentheid gehad om te kies om nie deel te wees van die klasaksie na sertifisering van die klas. Van nature maak klasaksies nie voorsiening vir individuele konsultasies nie, want dit is eenvoudig onmoontlik om met al die pensioenarisse in gesprek te tree. Daarom word die lede van die klas deur mnr Kwapa en mnr Pretorius verteenwoordig.


26. Waarom is pensioenarisse nie voorsien van die skikkingsooreenkoms voordat die hofbevel op 18 Februarie 2020 toegestaan ​​is nie?

a) Die kommersiële terme is aan alle pensioenarisse gekommunikeer voordat die hofbevel op 18 Februarie toegestaan ​​is. Die gedetailleerde skikking is eers kort voor die hofdatum afgehandel en is volledig gekommunikeer na die hofbevel  waarin uiteengesit word hoe die besonderhede van die skikking gepubliseer moet word en tyd gegee  vir klasklede om besware te opper. Die hofbevel op 18 Februarie het nie die skikkingsooreenkoms goedgekeur nie en dit is nie bindend vir die klaslede nie, dit is besluite wat die hof moet neem tydens of na die volgende verhoor.


27. Waarom het die regspan nie proksies of volmag by pensioenarisse verkry voordat die skikkingsooreenkoms gesluit is nie?

a) Sien die antwoord op paragraaf 25 en 26 hierbo.


28. Wat is die resultaat as die skikking op 14 April 2020 teengestaan ​​word?

a) Dit sal die saak tot 17 Junie 2020 uitstel.

b) As die opposisie suksesvol is, sal die skikkingsooreenkoms nie geïmplementeer word nie en sal pensioenarisse nie die pensioenverhogings of toekomstige enkelbedragbetalings soos beoog deur die skikkingsooreenkoms, ontvang nie.


29. Wat is die resultaat as die skikking nie op 17 Junie 2020 'n bevel van die hof gemaak word nie?

a) Daar kan 'n verdere uitstel wees indien al die besware nie op een dag afgehandel kan word nie. Dit kan beteken dat die saak vertraag word. Die regspan is van mening dat dit moeilik sal wees om hierdie saak in 2020 af te handel en in werking te stel, aangesien verskillende regspraktisyns op daardie spesifieke datum of datums beskikbaar moet wees. Daar is ooreengekom op die datum van 17 Junie 2020 en vorm dit deel van die hofbevel. Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat een van die faktore wat tydens die onderhandelingsproses namens die pensioenarisse oorweeg is, die gemiddelde ouderdom van die pensioenarisse was, en die uitwerking wat vertragings en uitgerekte litigasie- en appèlprosesse sou hê. Die vertraging sal alle pensioenarisse ernstig benadeel, aangesien hulle nie die voordeel van beter pensioene sal hê nie.


30. Sal my persoonlike omstandighede 'n geldige beswaar wees teen die finalisering van die skikkingsooreenkoms?

a) Die hofbevel bepaal dat enige lid van die klas en alle belangstellendes wat aan die verhoor wil deelneem, die hof mag toespreek oor die redelikheid, billikheid, toereikendheid en volhoubaarheid van die skikkingsooreenkoms.

b) Die hof sal die meriete van alle besware wat voor hom gebring word behoorlik in ag neem by die bepaling van die redelikheid, billikheid, toereikendheid en volhoubaarheid van die skikkingsooreenkoms.


31. Wat sal gebeur as die skikkingsooreenkoms uiteindelik nie 'n bevel van die hof is nie?

a) Die pensioenverhogings en die toekenning van enkelbedrae kragtens die skikkingsooreenkoms word dan nie betaal nie.


b) Die eisers sal moet aansoek doen vir 'n hofdatum, welke aangeleentheid bepaal sal word vir 'n termyn wat in 2021/2022 mag wees, onderhewig aan beskikbaarheid. Die pensioenarisse moet ook in gedagte hou dat een van die partye moontlik verlof tot appèl mag vra, spesiale verlof tot appèl later en 'n appèl kan volg, wat nog 'n jaar of twee kan duur om af te handel sonder waarborge vir beter pensioene. Geen van die voordele van die skikkingsooreenkoms sal gedurende die litigasie geimplementeer word nie, en die pensioenarisse loop die risiko om nie net verantwoordelik te wees vir die koste van hul eie regspanne nie, maar ook vir die twee opposisiepartye.



32. Waarom staan ​​pensioenarisse van die fondse die skikkingsooreenkoms teen?

a) Daar is 'n aantal pensioenarisse wat regtig slegte advies ten opsigte van die skikkingsooreenkoms aanvaar het. Dit kan nie te veel beklemtoon word dat die hof nie die bepalings van die skikkingsooreenkoms sal verbeter nie. Dit moet beklemtoon word dat persoonlike besware soos “ek geregtig is op 'n beter lewe” of “Transnet verplig is om my 'n beter lewe te gee” of “ons mans werk al 40 jaar en daarom is ek geregtig op 'n beter lewe” word nie deur die hof in aanmerking geneem nie en sal die proses bloot tot nadeel van alle pensioenarisse vertraag word

Contact