Another Woolworths supplier has come forward with allegations of mistreatment, threats, bullying and intimidation.
Former seafood supplier Grey’s Marine said the retail giant systematically dismantled a business it had helped build over more than three decades, before allegedly handing major portions of it to a direct rival under circumstances the family described as “an absolute and utter disgrace”.
The allegations come amid mounting scrutiny around Woolies’ treatment of suppliers after claims by chocolate entrepreneur Kees Beyers, who publicly accused the retailer of destroying his business after he allegedly breached an exclusivity arrangement.
Claims of pressure and intimidation
Now Joy and Trevor Grey, founders of Grey’s Marine, have detailed what they describe as years of pressure, intimidation and commercial dependency under Woolies’ seafood division, overseen by senior executives including Chan Pillay – also named by Beyers – and his direct report Ibrahim Musaji.
Joy said at the time of its demise, Grey’s Marine was a R200 million-plus business and employed around 200 full-time workers.
“Now, the factory is gone and all the jobs are lost,” she said.
Joy Grey told how the business grew from a small family seafood operation into one of Woolies’ largest seafood suppliers after the retailer approached them more than 30 years ago.
“We were a small family business and they originally headhunted us to produce frozen fish for them,” she said.
Family claims dependency and pressure grew over time
Grey’s Marine ultimately operated around 35 fresh-seafood counters at Woolworths stores, while also producing chilled seafood ranges distributed nationally.
The family said the arrangement left them almost entirely dependent on Woolworths, while simultaneously being bound by strict exclusivity agreements.
According to the family, the relationship became increasingly hostile after changes in leadership within Woolworths Foods.
Grey alleged declining sales volumes through Woolworths, combined with rigid exclusivity demands and pressure to invest in expensive machinery, placed enormous strain on the business.
“My husband had numerous meetings with them and they always made promises they were going to increase business,” Grey said.
She alleged that during one meeting, Pillay told her husband to seek additional business elsewhere before reminding him Grey’s Marine remained bound by exclusivity agreements.
Dispute centres on restructuring and business transfer
Grey further alleged Woolworths demanded major capital expenditure from the company, including a R5 million skinwrap machine allegedly purchased after assurances sufficient business would follow.
“We ended up losing our house over that machine,” she said.
At the centre of the dispute are allegations that Woolworths withdrew Grey’s Marine’s Johannesburg seafood counter business, allegedly worth around R80 million annually, and gave it to a competitor.
This, because the retailer purportedly planned to regionalise its business.
“They said, ‘You can’t have the seafood business in Joburg any more. You must give it to your competitor’,” Grey said. “Ultimately Woolworths didn’t regionalise anything.”
But the family complied to the company’s demands. Grey further said the family was pressured into accepting only R5 million for the business and machinery.
It was an R80 million piece of their business and a major pillar that the company relied on to sustain itself.
Claims of intimidation and unequal exclusivity rules
The meeting was also purportedly with Pillay’s direct superior Ibrahim Musaji who, Grey alleged, told them if they did not accept the price, “Chan Pillay will see you get nothing”.
The family also alleged they were effectively forced to finance the sale of their own business because the acquiring company allegedly could not immediately fund the purchase.
“They completely squeezed my husband and our family out of our business we had lovingly built with them for over 30 years.”
Grey alleged Musaji told them in the office next door Pillay was meeting Beyers and Woolies would no longer be doing business with him.
He then allegedly said: “This is what will happen to you if you do not do as we say.”
Just like the chocolatier, the family also alleged Woolies applied exclusivity rules unevenly.
Grey claimed the competitor they had sold their business to allegedly continued supplying other retailers while Grey’s Marine remained contractually restricted, but could not afford to sustain under the retailer’s demands.
Woolworths says matter will remain internal
Despite the seriousness and detail of the claims, neither Woolworths, nor Pillay and Musaji denied any of the claims put to it by The Citizen, including allegations of supplier pressure, exclusivity restrictions, forced restructuring arrangements, or the alleged transfer of Grey’s Marine’s business to competitors.
Instead, it issued a short statement, saying: “Grey’s Marine reached out to us directly with their concerns and, together with our group CEO, a constructive meeting was held. Our leadership team is committed to working with Grey’s Marine. At this stage, we will be keeping this matter internal, it is too soon to share feedback.”
