Goal is to get money for employees, prosecutor explains
Two employers who have been appearing before court for at least four years for the same charges relating to failing to pay contributions to an employees pension plan had their cases adjourned again Thursday.
Cayman Fidelity Real Estate and W5 Security Services Ltd. are both charged with failing without reasonable cause to contribute to a pension plan for employee; failing to pay arrears in the time given by the Superintendent of Pensions; and failing to provide information requested by the superintendent.
At the Summary Court Thursday, Crown counsel Kenneth Ferguson called Cayman Fidelity first. He told Magistrate Grand Donalds that, looking at the Caymanian Compass that day, some millions of dollars are outstanding in pension payments, but for Cayman Fidelity, the amount was very miniscule by comparison.
He said a company principal had been in correspondence with him for some time. “Hopefully, he will be finished paying off by January,” Mr. Ferguson advised, after receiving a report from a representative of the Pensions Office.
The matter was set for mention again on Jan. 23, 2014. The company first came to court June 23, 2009.
The Pensions Law provides penalties for employers who are guilty of pension breaches. Mr. Ferguson, however, has pointed out on numerous occasions that the ultimate objective is for employees to get what is legally theirs before a court passes sentence.
Informal records kept by the Compass show that the case of W5 Security was set for trial several times. On one occasion, the court was unable to reach the case because of other matters. The next time, the company representative was late and the court had already started another matter.
On another date, the Crown counsel was in the Grand Court, which takes priority.
On another occasion, the court was advised that the witnesses were not in the jurisdiction and it would be expensive to bring them here.
In 2011, a principal for the company said he was willing to pay what he owed and offered $200 per month. Mr. Ferguson called that amount ludicrous and said he did not see that an agreement could be reached for anything less than $500 per month.
On Thursday, the company’s representative was told to return to court on Thursday, Nov. 28. That matter first came to court on Oct. 27, 2008. The amount of money outstanding was not specified in either case.
Mr. Ferguson has pointed out on numerous occasions that the ultimate objective is for employees to get what is legally theirs before a court passes sentence.