Flag raised over S Central staff entitlements
- 02 November, 2009 16:54
- Comments 46
S Central's current and former staff have expressed concern over the company’s sale to managed services provider, Brennan IT, and its impact on their entitlements.
Several employees, who asked to remain anonymous, told ARN they had not been paid for at least two weeks. One former employee claimed to have lodged a complaint with the Fair Work Ombudsman.
As part of the business asset purchase, Brennan has offered jobs to up to 90 per cent of S Central’s employee base. However, it is understood Brennan will not assume any liabilities for staff entitlements such as annual leave, former pay cheques and expenses. Instead, these will remain with the S Central company shell.
The question now hanging in the air is whether the S Central shell will be placed in receivership or liquidated.
Brennan IT’s Dave Stevens confirmed that there were unpaid staff entitlements at S Central. Staff would need to gain entitlements through the Federal Government’s GEERS program. However, GEERS is only available to employees from a company that has been liquidated or gone into receivership, raising speculation that the S Central shell is about to be liquidated.
“That’s a complex question. All staff with unpaid entitlements have the GEERS program available to them,” Stevens said. “However, the GEERS program does not cover discretionary items such as commission and bonuses. We have undertaken to pay those for staff who join us.” GEERS is also not available to a number of S Central and Infotronics' consultants.
S Central staff will be able to start work for Brennan from Wednesday. The first pay day will be Friday, Stevens said. The service provider also has set-up a program to provide temporary staff who make the move over to Brennan and are in need of funding.
Earlier in the day, S Central managing director, Peter Mavridis, admitted the company experienced difficulties paying employees for a short period, but denied industry reports that it still owed money today to its staff.
There are also concerns whether S Central and its niche distribution subsidiary, Infotronics, will pay out their suppliers. Stevens confirmed Infotronics has been sold as part of the S Central asset bundle to Brennan IT. He estimated there were 10 staff, but sources close to the company claimed there were only 3-4 left full-time.
Infotronics’ supplier debts are estimated at just over $1 million. Its vendor line-up includes Celestix, Veeam, VirtualIQ, SonicWall, Kerio, Appsense and Thinprint. S Central's vendor portfolio meanwhile, includes HP, Citrix and Dell.
Veeam's David Allison declined to comment on the status of its relationship with Infotronics or if it was owed money. Vizioncore, a former Infotronics vendor, was also unable to comment on how much it was owed from the business since cutting ties 18 months ago when it signed with itX.
Come socialise with us! Facebook | LinkedIn
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
-
REVIEW: Is the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 the new king of Android tablets?
-
MySpace: The next hot social network?
-
Datacom joins AFP, Microsoft and ninemsn to support ThinkUKnow
-
Lenovo awarded NSW DET netbook contract
-
Telstra-NBN Co wholesale broadband agreement “imminent”
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events. 
Comments
Anonymous
Unpaid salaries
Despite Peter Mavridis denials, at least half of the Qld branch office remain unpaid since 3/10/2009, which includes superannuation contributions for that period. Any press wishing to confirm this should only need to call the Brisbane office directly.
We know many staff did get paid, although some had bank statement entries indicating it was from international sources instead of the normal source of salary payments.
Staff are rightfully concerned over their owed salaries, leave entitlements, superannuation, and in some cases payment in lieu of notice for those who are being forced into redundancy.
Sadly there is little internal communication occuring to keep staff informed, with most of us being kept up to date by rumors and press releases only.
Anonymous
Avoiding obligations
I think its scandalous that both Dave Stephens of Brennan and Peter Mavridis of S Central somehow think it is acceptable to advocate the use of GEERS as a way of S Centra;l avoiding their legal and ethical obligations to pay staff.
The GEERS scheme is very specific about entitlements (see link). S Central will have de declared bankrupt or insolvent for anyone to qualify - (which puts Peter Mavridis under onerous obligations???)
http://www.deewr.gov.au/WorkplaceRelations/Programs/EmployeeEntitlements/GEERS/Common/Pages/HowClaimWillBeAssessed.aspx
Who is eligible?
You may be eligible for GEERS assistance if you:
• lost your employment because your former employer became bankrupt or a liquidator was appointed and are owed employee entitlements, and
• lodge your claim within 12 months of losing your job or the date of which your former employer became bankrupt or went into liquidation, whichever is the later.
You may also be eligible for GEERS assistance if you:
• resigned following the appointment of an Insolvency Practitioner (IP), or
• resigned or your employment was terminated within six months before the appointment of an IP.
Who is not eligible?
You are not eligible to receive GEERS assistance if:
• your former employer is under the control of an administrator, a receiver manager, or is subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement, a Trust, a Personal Insolvency Agreement, or a Debt Agreement
• you were not an employee, i.e. if you were a contractor, sub-contractor or agent
• you lodge your claim more than 12 months after your employment was terminated or the date on which your former employer became bankrupt or entered into liquidation, whichever is the later
• you were employed by a partnership and not all partners are subject to insolvency, or
• there are funds available from your former employer or another source to pay your outstanding entitlements within 16 weeks of the department receiving your claim.
What you may be eligible for?
You may be eligible to receive assistance under GEERS for the following employee entitlements:
• up to 3 months unpaid wages for the period prior to the appointment of the insolvency practitioner (including amounts deducted from your wages, such as for superannuation, but not passed on to your superannuation fund)
• unpaid annual leave
• unpaid long service leave
• up to a maximum of 5 weeks unpaid payment in lieu of notice
• up to a maximum of 16 weeks unpaid redundancy entitlement.
If you are a director or principal of the employer or a relative of a director or principal you may be entitled to a maximum of $2000 for unpaid wages, and $1500 in total for unpaid annual leave and long service leave. You are, however, not eligible for payment in lieu of notice or redundancy pay.
If you earn more than the GEERS maximum annual wage at the date that your employment ceased, your GEERS advance will be calculated as if you earned that amount. The maximum annual wage for each financial year is provided below.
Maximum Annual Wage Financial year
$108 300 per year ($2076.04 per week) 1 July 2009-30 June 2010
$106 400 per year ($2039.62 per week) 1 July 2008-30 June 2009
$101 300 per year ($1941.85 per week) 1 July 2007-30 June 2008
$98 200 per year ($1882.43 per week) 1 July 2006-30 June 2007
$94 900 per year ($1819.17 per week) 1 July 2005-30 June 2006
$90 400 per year ($1732.91 per week) 1 July 2004-30 June 2005
$85 400 per year ($1,637.06 per week) 1 July 2003–30 June 2004
$81 500 per year ($1,562.30 per week) 1 July 2002–30 June 2003
$75 200 per year ($1,441.53 per week) 1 July 2001–30 June 2002
What is an eligible entitlement?
To be eligible under GEERS, your entitlement must be legislated, under an award, a Statutory Agreement or a written contract of employment, or otherwise confirmed in writing at the time of the appointment of the IP.
Anonymous
Concern
It's disturbing that a number of industry players have fallen over of very recednt times. The market is changing rapidly and with vendors desperate to incentivise end customers to buy via price cuts and various offers (e.g. 2-for-1 deals) there is very little margin left in product. Hard to see how distribution and product sales will handle the future. Leaves everyone fighting over the services. More failures to come ....
Anonymous
Where is ASIC?
Will the terms of the asset sale, of these assets be made to public as part of the administration/Liquidation. How are the employee entitlements being protected, if there has been a fire sale of assets, a sale of assets that seems to have guranteed at least the directors future employment? This is why administration is the first process of companies in trouble, to protect the companies assets from being sold, in a firesale because the creditors are chasing them through courts/collection proceedings.
This is systematic of business when times are tough. Companies that have preserved capital during turbulent time, been honest with investors in regards to cashflows and their forecasts and worked with their staff openly are ultimately the companies that come out the otherside, and don't have articles arounds business troubles in the press (not to mention the substantial number of angry staff/customers postings thus far)
Directors are responsible for being able to pay company debts when they are due. If they cannot pay these debts when they are due, then they are in breach of their obligations as a director. The sad thing about when companies are ulimtaly wound up, is that if there is no money once the company is in administration and liquidation (ie not enough money for the administrators or liquidators to investigate and take legal and financial recourse (of course covering their fees!)) ASIC almost never step in, so the Directors get off scott free, and start up again next week as T Central!
Anonymous
Depends what they are buying
If they are buying the "business" of the existing company, then they may not be able to avoid the responsibility of accepting all employee entitlements, as there are conditions known as "transmission of business" where the new company can not decline to accept responsibility for the entitlements of employees of the previous.
These clauses were specifically introduced to stop situations where the assets of a company were sold, employees transferred to a new company, and the employees hung out to dry for their entitlements. They were introduced as a direct result of some well documented cases in the mining industry.
I'm not suggesting, that this is the situation here, as like most people, I couldn't possibly even hazard a guess without detailed knowledge of the transaction, but it would be prudent for employees to get advice from counsel specializing in this area.
Also note that GEERS doesn't cover any unpaid super contributions, and has caps & conditions on what else is paid.
Anonymous
Concerns
I hold the same concerns...where is the industry going in Australia for Distribution?
Anonymous
Distribution is very much alive
Although I must admit the recent developments are discouraging, I beg to differ when it comes to stating that distribution or product sales is dying, due to increased competition.
This was the same when Dell announces several years ago of going direct. Yet, today, they don't seem to be growing as anticipated, and the once arrogant Dell having to now rely on channel on some product lines.
Fundamentally, instead of having to subscribe to the doomsday scenario of the channel being less important or dying, I personally believe the distributor and channel partners just need to constantly stay innovative and invest in the value-add component and longevity of the business, not just areas where it "seems" more profitable. This means through closer co-operation, distributor selection, product vendor selection, amongst other things, weighing the true costs of selling and supporting a product for the end user customer, rather than superficial margins at the get-go.
Anonymous
ironic isn't it, since I flagged serious concerns over S Central management and got dismissed in a previous article. But then some people don't listen or think.
I do hope Mavridis does jail time.
Anonymous
"More failure to come" - and today we hear of Applaud going a simialr way. Who's next? The industry abounds with rumours and some interesting names coming up regularly .....
Ricky
Applaud went a month ago. I dont think you can compare the two anyway S Central was sold to Brennan
Anonymous
S Central
As an ex Clariti staffer, I have a lot of empathy for the very committed technical team. When Mavridis bought Clariti, the whole culture changed for the worst. Regardless, of what he is stating publicly, I have it from the "horses mouth" that he has not paid some staff for over 1 month. Machiavellian I say!
Ricky
There's a book called "who moved my cheese" you should all read. Its about accepting change.
Anonymous
S Central still owe their staff entitlements
Today 6th of November 9:30 pm, I have not been paid my entitlements, I just checked the bank account.
Don't know if anyone has, I suspect not, there would have been news.
And "Mr Who", It's not about change, we have accepted the change to Brennan, they are a reputable company full of good people, what we are protesting about is being decievied over our entitlements by S Central.
Will S Central go into liquidation and make it's employees eligible foir GEERS?
Will they pay out their employees, they originally said they couldn't, then they said they could, which is it?
At this point we believe S Central's plans are for neither to occur and for us to get nothing.
Take action to ensure we get what we are owed and inform us of what has been done, we will accept no less.
Peter please do not distort the situation as you have been doing, you DO still owe us money, just admit it.
You invite us to make comment when you say these things, we have no choice but to put the record straight.
Anonymous
If Peter continues to Lie he should make the company insolvent
As a Senior Engineer in Melb I have not been paid for a month ! Peter is lying if he believes everyone has been paid as I know of least 4 people just in the last 10 mins!
He has two options pay everyone or
Become insolvent, and as a consequence which I'm sure he is aware forgoe being a director or board member of any Australian company for many years !
I think the first option maybe a tad easier !
Cut the crap Peter I'm sure your family is OK think about all of ours instead of being a Pr1ck although BRW loves a great rise and fall with an unhappy ending!!!!!
Anonymous
As an accountant you have no commercial sense. I doubt your a senior engineer with that sort of lack of knowledge.
If a company is liquidated that doesnt make any Director bankrupt. The company and the Directors are not one and the same.
Theres a basic 101 commerce course at Broadmeadows tafe for people like you. Its about year 9 level so you may learn something.
Anonymous
Clariti Had NO Culture!
Who said Clariti had culture, you must be kiiding. Two years i was there before SC took over and the place was a disgrace. The owners were at each others throats.
Horrible place to work!
Anonymous
Hey easy on she admited she was an engineer!
Yer Directors don't get personally chased uless they signed personal guarantees, people like the SC directors would be smarter than that.
You are right though the liquidator gets apointed by the secured creditors not PM. Your barking up the wrong tree expecting him to do that. You just have to wait love they try and get their bit first.
Frankston Tafe has a year 6 version of comercial 101, you might want to start with thet before broady
Anonymous
Didn't mention anything about director being bankrupt I said he can't be a director or board member if a company he is a director of becomes insolvent!
So maybe as an accountant back to Tafe for yourself ! I think having a dig at the staff is quite amusing as, as a bean counter the money we are owed would get your little brain fuming ! Last time I looked senior engineers didn't require a lawdegree ? Although all this crap is common sense and knowledge. Concentrate on the real issue Peter has not paid staff and has no intention to despite what the interview says !
Anonymous
your still not correct madam. Companies are wound up through insolvencies all the time, when i was a BHP we were doing 10 a month. Of course Directors can continue as directors of other companies its only if they personally go bankrupt which I doubt would happen here.
You can't even get the real issue right is not PM who isnt paying the staff is the major secured creditors in these instances who has the choice.
Not having a go at you but you shouldn't make statements that are not accurate love!
Anonymous
Thanks for clear up Yoda !
The company as far as I know (Unless you are privy to more info than us staff) Is still trading ! So the only secured creditor that can actually make decisions is the bank as they have frozen the line of credit or OD.
Unless my inferior Law knowledge is incorrect I'm sure that still means that Peter at this point in time can decide how to Divy up the cash !
BTW you forgot to mention how this personally affects you ?
Because if doesnt instead of bagging the comments or situation put your obviously large corporate knowlege to offer some suggestions of what unpaid (alot of them) employees should do !!
PS Madam is a lovely touch
Anonymous
Mam
sorry love but you contradicted yourself on one hand you say the bank has hold of the cash then you say Peter does. Can only be one or the other and usually at this point it isnt the directors.
I would say wait, until the asset transferes are done by Brennan they will do nothing. Depends on how many millions the business is sold for as to how long it takes.
Usually in a sale of businesses the new employer takes over the entitlements, Dave Brennan where r u?
You shouldn't worry pretty girls like you find it easy to get jobs in the IT industry, not enough of them.
PS doesn't personally affect me just was there a while ago and don't like it when people who don't know much about a topic comment like experts.
Anonymous
Stop the lies
Long story short. I'm still owed money by S Central. I'm owed a fortnights salary, comms, expenses and annual leave, along with many others,if not all the staff.
Anonymous
Still no entitlements paid
S Central is still NOT paying it's employees their entitlements even though they have said publicly they have the money and would do so, the employees DO NOT believe this statement from S Central.
There has been NO communication from S Central to it's employees since our termination notices and exceedingly little prior to that.
Reason for Termination we were given:-
“At any time during this Agreement, the Agreement may be terminated… By you or the Company giving 4 weeks written notice (or payment in lieu) or such shorter period of notice as may be agreed between you and the Company.”
We have not received the 4 weeks pay in lieu of notice either.
Nice hey, notice no mention of the real reason.
Quite a lot of employees are owed:- 4 weeks pay for work done, all, as far as I am aware, are owed the 4 weeks in lieu as above, almost all have some leave entitlements, I have a bit over 5 weeks owing. I am personally owed about 11 weeks pay, others are owed more.
Amazing how the senior management in Melbourne seem to have used up some or all of their leave entitlements prior to this happening. One was on leave when this occured, bet you that person received their holiday pay. Quite a coincidence really.
Negotiations with Brennan were also occuring prior to the event too. Again, what a coincidence.
Is anyone going to dispute these facts?
Because thats what they are, facts.
P.S.
A court can find a person is not a "Fit and Proper" person to be a board member for many reasons here are some.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 206D
Court power of disqualification--insolvency and non-payment of debts
(1) On application by ASIC, the Court may disqualify a person from managing corporations for up to 20 years if:
(a) within the last 7 years, the person has been an officer of 2 or more corporations when they have failed; and
(b) the Court is satisfied that:
(i) the manner in which the corporation was managed was wholly or partly responsible for the corporation failing; and
(ii) the disqualification is justified.
(1A) To avoid doubt, the references in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) to a corporation include references to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a corporation fails if:
(a) a Court orders the corporation to be wound up under:
(i) section 459B of this Act; or
(ii) section 526‑1 of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 ;
because the Court is satisfied that the corporation is insolvent; or
(b) the corporation enters into voluntary liquidation and creditors are not fully paid or are unlikely to be fully paid; or
(c) the corporation executes a deed of company arrangement and creditors are not fully paid or are unlikely to be fully paid; or
(d) the corporation ceases to carry on business and creditors are not fully paid or are unlikely to be fully paid; or
(e) a levy of execution against the corporation is not satisfied; or
(f) a receiver, receiver and manager, or provisional liquidator is appointed in relation to the corporation; or
(g) the corporation enters into a compromise or arrangement with its creditors under Part 5.1 (including that Part as applied by section 45‑1 of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 ); or
(h) the corporation is wound up and a liquidator lodges a report under subsection 533(1) (including that subsection as applied by section 526‑35 of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 ) about the corporation's inability to pay its debts.
Note: To satisfy paragraph (h), a corporation must begin to be wound up while the person is an officer or within 12 months after the person ceases to be an officer. However, the report under subsection 533(1) may be lodged by the liquidator at a time that is more than 12 months after the person ceases to be an officer. Sections 513A to 513D contain rules about when a company begins to be wound up.
(2A) The reference in paragraph (2)(c) to a deed of company arrangement includes a reference to a deed of corporation arrangement (within the meaning of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 .
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is an officer of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation if the person is an officer of that corporation within the meaning of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 .
(3) In determining whether the disqualification is justified, the Court may have regard to:
(a) the person's conduct in relation to the management, business or property of any corporation; and
(b) any other matters that the Court considers appropriate.
(4) To avoid doubt, the reference in paragraph (3)(a) to a corporation includes a reference to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 206F
ASIC's power of disqualification
Power to disqualify
(1) ASIC may disqualify a person from managing corporations for up to 5 years if:
(a) within 7 years immediately before ASIC gives a notice under paragraph (b)(i):
(i) the person has been an officer of 2 or more corporations; and
(ii) while the person was an officer, or within 12 months after the person ceased to be an officer of those corporations, each of the corporations was wound up and a liquidator lodged a report under subsection 533(1) (including that subsection as applied by section 526‑35 of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 ) about the corporation's inability to pay its debts; and
(b) ASIC has given the person:
(i) a notice in the prescribed form requiring them to demonstrate why they should not be disqualified; and
(ii) an opportunity to be heard on the question; and
(c) ASIC is satisfied that the disqualification is justified.
(1A) To avoid doubt, the references in paragraph (1)(a) to corporations include references to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations.
Grounds for disqualification
(2) In determining whether disqualification is justified, ASIC:
(a) must have regard to whether any of the corporations mentioned in subsection (1) were related to one another; and
(b) may have regard to:
(i) the person's conduct in relation to the management, business or property of any corporation; and
(ii) whether the disqualification would be in the public interest; and
(iii) any other matters that ASIC considers appropriate.
(2A) To avoid doubt, the references in subsection (2) to a corporation includes a reference to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation.
Notice of disqualification
(3) If ASIC disqualifies a person from managing corporations under this section, ASIC must serve a notice on the person advising them of the disqualification. The notice must be in the prescribed form.
Start of disqualification
(4) The disqualification takes effect from the time when a notice referred to in subsection (3) is served on the person.
ASIC power to grant leave
(5) ASIC may give a person who it has disqualified from managing corporations under this Part written permission to manage a particular corporation or corporations. The permission may be expressed to be subject to conditions and exceptions determined by ASIC.
Anonymous
To unpaid
Before any recommendation can be made we need to know the facts, what has happened to you? Have they sent a letter of termination, what have they told you? What’s your current position with them?
Anonymous
Reply to Unpaid
A letter of termination was issued to all staff refering to a clause in their employment contract. An outplacement service was offered to those staff not offered a role with Brennan IT. There was no mention of liquidation, administration or payment of any outstanding salaries or employmee entitlements.
Anonymous
you obviously didn't get an offer to move across to Brennan. Must be a dud, they use acquisitions to clean out the average employees you know !
Anonymous
stupid
you must be an idiot why would S Central communicate with you if you have been sacked?
Anonymous
Perhaps all those offering gratuitous comments such as "dud" from the sidelines without any real knowledge of what it was like at S Central or what has or has not been communicated to staff should put a sock in it.
It's all very well to make generalised comments but they are mostly ill informed. The companies that were acquired by S Central had their good points and bad points but the fact is S Central has been running them for some time now what is salient is what has recently happened.
I am a former employee who resigned some time ago because I could see the writing on the wall, had high hopes for the Computer Corp merger but dounted it could success financially and had no faith in a business run by the current S Central CEO.
But let's examine the recent facts (all a matter of public record if you care to look)
The fact is that S Central has been on the ropes for a while (evidenced by not paying creditors, having funds frozen etc) and most of the staff have not been paid their entitlements, despite two contradictory promises (1st GEERS now a magic pudding fund that somehow is available despite having $10m in NET liabilities less than 6 months ago as announced as part of the failed Computer Corp merger).
Most staff (except mainly admin ones) have been offered jobs by Brennan (who appear to be trying to do the right thing and have even offered to honour leave and some entitlements) but Brennan never offered to take on staff liabilities and this was clearly never part of the deal (you can bet S Central would have off loaded them if it could have).
To get round that it was publicly stated that GEERS could be used. But perhaps S Central realised that this was a gross abrogation of responsibilities (GEERS is meant to protect employee entitlements not absolve directors of responsibilities) and would require them to go insolvent. So S Central instead announces that staff would be paid from the debtors when they were collected.
As yet nothing has been forthcoming and staff are justificanly angry because they believe they have lied to (the public statements are clearly contradictory). Many believe that the latest re-assurances are merely a PR ploy by S Central to avoid responsibility and attention from the ATO, ASIC and perhaps larger creditors. In time the facts in this regard will out.
There is no doubt this saga has further chapters to unfold. But in the meantime you can understand how staff who worked in good faith are angry at not beeing paid and being misled.
Anonymous
In reply to "stupid", because S Central owe me a lot of money. That's why they need to communicate to me what they are doing about it. I tend to get concerned when people owe me a lot of money and make NO arrangements for it to be paid.
Please stop using the move to Brennan to avoid the issue, whether we went to Brennan or not we didnt get paid. YES, I went to Brennan, hope to stay there, and I didn't get paid by S Central, OK.
Got that, Brennan has NOTHING to do with this and I resent the fact that their name keeps getting dragged into this.
They have done nothing wrong.
Another job does not relinquish S Central from it's obligations, your are delusional if you think it does.
P.S. The Dud's in S Central were the HR and financial management team in Melbourne, NOT the engineers nor the sales team in melbourne nor the other states. They were in ultimate control of the finances and communication of the company nationally.
matt
your seem like an idiot. if the engineering team were any good like ours they wouldn't have had any issues. I hear the engineers we concerned about their own, earning big salaries and not dlivering according to my guys.
SCentral was sucking by the engineers, you guys don't deserve much IMO!
Anonymous
Matt - that is an ill informed and insulting comment, based on nothing apparently other than innuendo.
The S Central engineers were highly professional - most of those who left this year (and there were a lot as the rot set in) have found excellent jobs doing high quality work. I believe those picked up by Brennan will do the same.
Please leave these sort of personal and ill informed cooments out of this.
The issue is one of staff not being paid when they should have been, both legally and athically, and feeling they have been misled by the senior management of a failed company.
Anonymous
come off it Matt
Come off it Matt, I suspect you got paid given your posting, how many more got paid in QLD?
Not too many I hear, there was a posting that said half remain unpaid. I guess according to you they don't deserve it either.
And what sort of explanation is that, "we don't deserve it", very nasty indeed. Sorry but the law says we do deserve it.
Are you their new whipping boy now Matt?
Anonymous
Employees still not paid from S Central, don't know what the comments have been removed.
Anonymous
so Peter Mavridis gets to use you guys as his puppet now.
Noticed the removal of all comments, allowing only Peter Mavridis to have a say. Well thank you very much, so he can spread lies and get away with ripping people off, have some backbone ARN.
Anonymous
Comments
Where are all the comments? How are people going to know that Peter has STILL not paid some of his staff yet? Doesn't he know that staff get paid before other creditors...or is he hoping that we won't know our rights? There's a reason he hired us in the first place and that is because we are smart.
Annonymous
A matter of Time
Secured Creditors with a direct charge get their money first even before staff. Geez you must really be smart!
There was a comment on here that explained the process in the asset sale. Its probably up to the timing of the assets transfers to Brennan. It wouldn't be in Peter's control on timing.
Anonymous
was there any legal action to have all the comments removed? I don't undestand why all had to be removed as didn't think all were defamatory? (though some definitely were.)
Dissapointing nonetheless
Anonymous
Many current staff are still owed money. Its definately not the first time there has been issues with paying staff. There is a reason why so many left the company in such a short period of time.
techplus
Anyone been paid ?
So it is now more than a week since this article was posted. Have the staff all been paid now ?
david_ramli@idg.com.au
Man, I wonder how many of you winging babies have actually just called or emailed ARN instead of posting "you guys fail" on the stories.
I have met some of these guys during a couple of events and they are usually pretty decent, albeit a bit slow on some things.
But I'll bet you just love having a go at people behind their back. Lame.
Anonymous
Still no pay
NO!!! I am a former S Central employee and have still not been paid! THIS IS A JOKE!
Anonymous
cash - no
Neither have I or three of my colleagues
Anonymous
SCentral employee entitlements
I believe Mavridis was listed in the BRW Young Entrepreneur rich list recently. So he must have plenty of money to meet his obligations to S Central's employees.
Or was he lying?
Surely BRW would have done some basic due diligence on his claims?
Anonymous
Money owed
Peter Mavridis still ows most of the staff money, from the last couple of months let alone people who left when they saw the writing on the wall , nearly everyone that has had contact with Peter Mavridis is owed money in some sort of fasion,
No wonder hes on the BRW wish list or should that be rich list, you figure it out :-)
Peter
Pay your staff, Pay your creditors and take care of you responsibilitys as an Employeer.
a former employee.
Anonymous
Still not paid - 20th November
It has been 18 days since this article - still no pay for some former SCentral employees!
Who is this Mavridis? How does he just walk away from employees like this?
Anonymous
Hmm
I wonder if ill get paid before Christmas... Jingle bells jingle bells!