do you suppose they timed it to coincide with nick's holidays??
----- Original Message -----
From: "nick4mony" <no_reply@...>
To: <otmushrooms@...>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 1:29 PM
Subject: [otmushrooms] Nick Bishop on leave - soon
> People,
>
> I will not be available for two weeks after 5 December until 22
> December 2003 (exclusive), because I will be on holiday.
>
> If you have problems with your email between these dates, or someone
> wants to join, Paul Davis can help.
>
> He will post a contact email address to the group closer to the time,
> but if that fails, you can still call me on my mobile: 0438 366 342.
>
> Nick Bishop
> -----
> Stress relief
> http://localhost.ee/pop.swf
> -oOo-
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members of
this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> Public file archives (Files for download)
> http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
There was no activity between 1 and 4 Nov 2003.
There are 2 threads of conversation in this summary
Threads continued from previous summaries, out of a possible 18
6. Jokes
13. OTT ASX announcement: Equity Capital Raising
There are no new threads.
Thread: 6
Subject: Jokes
One email footer from Nick
-----
Horse Sense, n:
The thing that keeps a horse from betting on people.
-oOo-
Other funnies ...
-----
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:53:11 -0000
From: nick4mony
Subject: Reply paid envelope
--- In openvictims@..., "Steve Gerlach"
<gerlach@a...>
wrote:
> Add stress, phone calls, faxes, emails, time wasted...
>
> Damn it, our latest "entitlement letter" (and I use that term
loosely)
> doesn't even come with a reply envelope!
Perhaps they didn't want to be caught sending out any empty
envelopes?
Mr Cynical, bigfoot.com @ nick4mony
-----
--- In openvictims@..., nick4mony <no_reply@y...>
stupidly wrote:
> 3.4 m - 1.5 m = 2.9 m
Oh gawd. Serves me right for being up too late.
-----
[From Geoff Hudson]
3.4 - 1.5 = 1.9 NOT 2.9
I'm glad you don't test my software....
;-)
-oOo-
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thread: 13
Subject: OTT ASX announcement: Equity Capital Raising
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 03:20:33 -0000
From: nick4mony
Subject: Result of Shareholders' meeting
Quick note [corrected]:
The motion at this morning's meeting has been passed. The proxy
voting pattern was 365m for and 3m against.
It was also announced at the meeting that Ord Minnett had
already
obtained funding for the billion shares.
==========
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:22:37 +1100
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>
Subject: Proposed use of capital raising funds
[Original Subject: Re: Re: OTT Announcement: Equity Capital
Raising 9 Oct 03]
See page 4 of the ASX announcment of the AGM on 21 Oct 03.
"the proceeds of [the] issue will
be applied to the following purposes in the order the Directors
believe
is
best for the company at the time and depending on the amount of
funds
raised:
- payment of deferred liabilities $2.9 m
- on-going working capital $1.0 m
- costs of funds raising $0.9 m
- payment of liabilities owing by the company under the DoCA
$1.8 m
- retirement of secured interest bearing loans - $3.4 m of which
$1.5m is a
loan (including accrued interest) provided by Intelligent
Networks Pty Ltd
which is a related party to Wayne Passlow, the Chairman and
Director of
the Company"
========= End of summary ==========
People,
I will not be available for two weeks after 5 December until 22
December 2003 (exclusive), because I will be on holiday.
If you have problems with your email between these dates, or someone
wants to join, Paul Davis can help.
He will post a contact email address to the group closer to the time,
but if that fails, you can still call me on my mobile: 0438 366 342.
Nick Bishop
-----
Stress relief
http://localhost.ee/pop.swf
-oOo-
I am looking for recommendations for an industrial relations lawyer or
similar. I am wanting to seek advice on a proposed employment contract.
This has nothing to do with the OT insolvency, but I am aware that
several people on here have been to see lawyers. If you found them
good, please advise.
Nick Bishop, bigfoot.com @ nick4mony
-----
Save the whales, BUT DON'T save New South Wales.
-oOo-
> Mudgee abattoir workers will be paid **today** (14 Nov 03) by GEERS,
before
> the administration of the abattoir has concluded (so DEWR doesn't know if
> the outcome will satisfy GEERS operational arrangements).
According to http://tinyurl.com/vyvj, the adminstrator was appointed as
liquidator on Wednesday 12 Nov 03 by the state govt. Hence DEWR *did* know
that the outcome would satisfy GEERS operational arrangements.
It appears the abattoir will be sold as a going concern by the liquidator.
--- In otmushrooms@..., "Paul S Davis" <p.s.davis@i...>
relayed:
> The ATO will lodge one proof of debt (on the employees' behalf)
which will
> include the superannuation shortfall, interest and an administration fee
> component which makes up the Superannuation Guarantee Charge. This
will be
> paid, in the form of a dividend, from the pool of funds available for
> distribution to employees under the Deed of Company Arrangement. The
> nominal interest component is calculated on each person's shortfall
and is
> passed onto the individual employee. The Administration fee is kept
by the
> tax office.
I passed all the guff to Robert Hodge of ASFA for his comment with the
basic question "are they talking rubbish?" (plus a few specific
questions + background).
He replied saying that what was said was all OK.
The administration fee is $50 + $30 per employee, and it is important
to note that the ATO currently keeps 100% of that fee, so you actually
get a little less than 43% (or whatever recovery we wind up with) to
your super account. The tax office is proposing they forego the fee,
but that won't help us.
*********
The only thing that hasn't been answered (need to explicity ask this
question ...)
=> Has Deloitte sent the information about Super entitlements to the
Tax Office?
The only ones who can answer that are Deloitte.
This is required so that the ATO can actually calculate what to claim.
Nick Bishop.
-----
Public transport march this Sunday 2pm at Fitzroy Town Hall (Melbourne).
-oOo-
Question: is anybody in Sydney actually turning up (would prefer in a
suit, rather than military camouflage)
If so, please contact me privately with enough information for me to
fill out the proxy form properly
bigfoot.com @ nick4mony
Nick.
-----
[after pressing the Microsoft Chart button in MS Word]
This command is not available because Microsoft Chart is not available.
-oOo-
> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:29:05 +1100
> From: Michael Williams <mikews@o...>
> Subject: Re: OT shareholder meeting
>
> Guys,
>
> I have been advised there will be an OT shareholder meeting on 21/11/03
> at 11am at the Harbourview hotel in Sydney. This is in relation to
> raising 1billion shares at 1c each ($10m) I note in the paperwork that
> if this is successful then $2.9m will be used to pay off deferred
> liabilities, and a further $1.8m to pay off libilities owing under the
> DOCA.
There are 7 threads of conversation in this summary
Threads continued from previous summaries, out of a possible 13
6. Jokes
13. OTT ASX announcement: Equity Capital Raising
There are five new threads.
14. Circular to Employees/Ex Employees
15. Sallie, not Sally
16. Tax Rates
17. Years Service calculation
18. Superannuation issues
Thread: 6
Subject: Jokes
Email footers (from Nick & Ben).
-----
The Melbourne Cup: the race that stops two nations. However, some
media commentators forget that New Zealand exists.
-----
Problem: My alarm clock is not alert
-----
Kill Bill - sounds like a good movie for a Windows Hater.
-----
What's the difference between Elvis and Christopher Skase?
Elvis's death was not an accounting trick
-----
What's the similarity between Elvis and Skase?
They've both been seen alive last month in Bondi.
-----
Proposed addition to the PDP-11 instruction set
POPI Punch Operator Immediately
-----
Doh A Beer.
(Parody of "Doh A Deer" from "The Sound Of Music")
A song by Homer Simpson
DOH... the stuff...that buys me beer...
RAY... the guy that sells me beer...
ME...the guy...who drinks the beer,
FAR...a long way to get a beer...
SO...I'll have another beer...
LA...ger is a form of beer...
TEA...no thanks, I'm drinking beer...
That will bring us back to...
DOH!!! DOH!!! DOH!!! DOH!!! DOOOOH!!! SO DOH!!!
-oOo-
Other funnies ...
-----
Don't hold your breath or
you'll turn blue, die, be buried, rot, be reincarnated as an insolvency
accountant, then live to the age of 57 before being murdered by a
dissatisfied employee still waiting for a brass razoo.
-- Tom Northey
[True: You cannot kill yourself by holding your breath - from MX ]
-----
Don't
let 'em get away with a penny! (or, at least, a penny more than they
already are)
-- Elizabeth Fullerton
-----
[Taxi fares come] from the other fund which (at
this rate) will be fully dealt with when the Earth is demolished for
an intergalactic bypass in 2 million years time.
-- Nick Bishop
-----
It was definitely written down as otherwise DTT wouldn't agree to
it. :-)
-- Glenn Shirley
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thread: 13
Subject: OTT ASX announcement: Equity Capital Raising
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:29:05 +1100
From: Michael Williams <mikews@o...>
Subject: Re: OT shareholder meeting
Guys,
I have been advised there will be an OT shareholder meeting on 21/11/03
at 11am at the Harbourview hotel in Sydney. This is in relation to
raising 1billion shares at 1c each ($10m) I note in the paperwork that
if this is successful then $2.9m will be used to pay off deferred
liabilities, and a further $1.8m to pay off libilities owing under the
DOCA.
==========
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:29:32 +1000
From: Tom Northey <tn@d...>
Subject: Re: Circular To Employees/Ex Employees
"Mike Williams" wrote
> I would be very
> interested to know if they are paying Paterson Ord Minnett for their
services?
Paterson Ord Minnett are getting $900K
If you have not seen the latest ASX announcement from OTT, they are
asking
shareholders for approval to issue up to 1 billion shares at 1c each
and 333
million options with exercise price of 1.5c (options presumably issued
for
no cost). Shares to be placed with small number investors rather than
offered via prospectus. No underwriting.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thread: 14
Subject: Circular to Employees/Ex Employees
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:18:18 +1000
From: "Paul S Davis" <psdavis@a...>
Subject: Circular To Employees/Ex Employees
I received my "Circular To Employees/Ex Employees" requesting that I
fill out a Form 535 by the 18 Nov so that I will be eligible to
participate in the 8th Dec dividend or else I will be excluded from
the benefit
of the dividend.
Have others received their letters?
==========
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 07:49:55 +1000
From: Mark Shannon <mshannon@v...>
Subject: RE: Circular To Employees/Ex Employees
I have also received the letter from DTT last night. All appears to be
correct, although they have calculated 2 weeks for "Notice" whereas I
was
under the impression that the notice period was supposed to be for a
month.
Everything else is correct. Does anyone else have that same impression
on
notice?
Thanks.
==========
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:18:56 +1000
From: Elizabeth Fullerton <laslig@o...>
Subject: Re: RE: Circular To Employees/Ex Employees
... I also noticed the 2 weeks in lieu of notice. My contract says 4, and
also they
mention a month's notice in the front page, so I'm just going to change
it. Don't
let 'em get away with a penny! (or, at least, a penny more than they
already are)
==========
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:30:46 +1000
From: "Steve Gerlach" <gerlach@a...>
Subject: RE: Re: Re: Circular To Employees/Ex Employees
My birth date is correct.
I have 1 month's Notice, not 2 weeks.
I'm damned if I know WHY we have to fill in FORM 535 AGAIN when we did
it a year ago!
I take it that we have to HALVE the figures quoted, as that will be our
final payout, and halve them AGAIN because this is payment one of two,
correct?
==========
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:05:51 +1000
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Circular To Employees/Ex Employees
The amount you'll get in the first payment is...
your_total * $790K / sum_of_all_totals
Note that sum of all totals is approx $3.67M based on the oft-quoted
43% and
$1.58M.
Does anyone know anything about the "Bonus on notice", "bonus on
redundancy"
and "OSS delivery bonus". These are all zero on my form (of course
zero
redundancy -> zero bonus on redundancy" but what about the others?).
==========
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:36:18 +1000
From: Mark Shannon <mshannon@v...>
Subject: RE: Re: Re: Circular To Employees/Ex Employees
Tom,
Same as mine:
$0 for Bonus on Redundancy
$0 for Bonus on notice
$0 for Bonus on OSS Delivery
I have never these "Categories" before. Don't know what they are about.
==========
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 03:37:34 -0000
From: nick4mony
Subject: Re: Circular To Employees/Ex Employees
The full amount goes on the form. You go through the half-by-half
exercise only in your mind, and only if you need to give a boost to
your sense of cynicism.
I haven't got my circular yet, but when I do, I'll take a good day or
two to study everything, read the instructions (if any), read their
prevous circulars, and double-check everything.
For those that also had ordinary unsecured debts (eg taxi fares),
don't worry about it because that comes from the other fund which (at
this rate) will be fully dealt with when the Earth is demolished for
an intergalactic bypass in 2 million years time.
==========
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:14:09 -0000
From: nick4mony
Subject: Car payments and other salary sacrifice
A few comments are floating around that people with car payments have
found they are missing from their calculations of entitlements.
This is because these are Ordinary Unsecured Debt (ie from the other
Unsecured Creditors Fund). You will get approximately 20% of this.
I have seen something in one of the submissions mentioning the issue,
that these payments attract the lower priority of Ordinary Unsecured
Debt (ie with trade creditors).
This is an anomoly in the Corporations Act, and I am delving more into
it. Of course it is stupid that a private decision as to how someone
spends their money can influence its priority. The system shouldn't
care whether you spend your money on slow horses and fast women, or
anything else.
==========
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:45:16 +1000
From: Ben Castan <bcastan@b...>
Subject: RE: Re: Circular To Employees/Ex Employees
The OSS Delivery bonus was for the people who worked on the Comindico
Roll out. It really was for the delivery of the first cut of call agent
code, but they were generous and gave it to all people involved in the
Comindico Rollout.
No idea about the others.
==========
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:01:13 -0000
From: "grshirley" <GSHIRLEY@I...>
Subject: Re: Circular To Employees/Ex Employees
The Bonus on notice and Bonus on Redundancy were, from what I can
remember, the 15% extra redundancy we were promised for being stupid
enough to hang around after the previous redundancy round.
==========
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:20:38 +1100
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>
Subject: Re: Re: Circular To Employees/Ex Employees
It doesn't apply to Melbourne apparently. They probably offered it in
Sydney, because the work in Sydney was (in part?) based on specific
projects
with specific end-dates.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thread: 15
Subject: Sallie, not Sally
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:58:41 -0000
From: nick4mony
Subject: Sallie, not Sally
--- In openvictims@..., Discovery95 <discovery95@b...>
wrote:
> SUBJECT: Re: Just spoke to Sally. Who hasn't yet...
> She is a legend, (compared to other DTT yobbo's.)
To avoid getting her off-side, note that it is SALLIE, not Sally.
From a guy who worked with "Barrie", and also with "Manda"
Nick.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thread: 16
Subject: Tax Rates
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 07:37:11 -0000
From: "start_monday" <start_monday@y...>
Subject: tax rates
I spoke with Sally Muir who confirmed that dividends from the fund
will be taxed :
unpaid wages - 21.5 %
unpaid leave - 31.5 %
Someone may like to query redundancies etc.
==========
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:32:02 +1000
From: Tom Northey <tn@d...>
Subject: Re: tax rates
http://www.ato.gov.au/content/downloads/n3351.pdf "Unused Leave
Payments on
Termination of Employment"
says payment for unused leave and long service leave (in case of
redundancies) is taxed at 31.5%.
http://www.ato.gov.au/content/downloads/n3349.pdf "Eligible
Termination
Payments" says
ETP is taxed at 21.5%. The ETP is that part of the payment for notice
and
redundancy that exceeds the tax free limit. You can roll the ETP into
a
super fund and avoid the tax, but I doubt many people will exceed the
tax
free limit for notice and redundancy.
http://www.ato.gov.au/super/content.asp?doc=/content/19824.htm says
The tax-free limit for the 2002/2003 year is a flat dollar amount of
$5,623
plus $2,812 for each completed year of service. [We may get into the
2003/2004 tax year so presumably that is higher but I couldn't find
it.]
Completed years of service include periods of annual leave and long
service
leave taken. If the payment is more than the tax-free limit, the amount
over
the limit is an eligible termination payment (ETP).
Above is provided you provide TFN.
Also see
Lump sum payments in arrears
http://tinyurl.com/s0io or
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/19854.htm&pc=001/002/\
037/008&mnu=992&mfp=001/002&st=&cy=1
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thread: 17
Subject: Years Service calculation
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:43:25 +1100
From: "Tan Diep" <tandiep@o...>
Subject: "Years Service" calculation
For those who joined OT between 27-July to 26-August who got retrenched
on 26-July-2002, you might want to re-calculate your "Years Service"
because you might be entitled to more weeks for your redundancy.
Example:
I joined OT on 8 August 2000.
OT retrenced me on 26 July 2002.
Deloitte caluclated my "Years Service" based on the above date to be
1.96.
BUT, with OT giving a month notice, this would push my termination date
to 26 August 2002.
Re-calculation of my "Years Service" based on my new end date should be
2.05.
With this new calculation, I have 2 more weeks for my redundancy.
Spoken to Morgan Kelly and he agreed verbally over the phone after
putting me on hold to seek advice from the lawyer.
He then asked me to put on the Form 535 and send it back and they will
review it.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thread: 18
Subject: Superannuation issues
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:29:17 +1000
From: "Paul S Davis" <psdavis@a...>
Subject: Re: Circular To Employees/Ex Employees
It is not clear to my why we would not include superannuation on our
proof
of debt form. The initial advice from the ATO over the phone was that
DTT in
entirely reasonability for paying super and the ATO didn't want to be
involved. I am seek a written statement from the ATO (slow process)
and
will now send the last information from DTT to them.
==========
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:46:26 +1000
From: "Richard Watson" <rwatson@s...>
Subject: RE: Circular To Employees/Ex Employees
... I gather from Deloitte's circular of 17 October
that the Superannuation Guarantee Legislation stipulates that
superannuation must be paid to the ATO before being paid into a roll
over fund.
==========
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:38:38 -0000
From: nick4mony
Subject: Re: Circular To Employees - Superannuation issues
--- In openvictims@..., "Paul S Davis" <psdavis@a...>
wrote:
> It is not clear to my why we would not include superannuation on our
proof
> of debt form. The initial advice from the ATO over the phone was
that DTT in
> entirely reasonability for paying super and the ATO didn't want to be
> involved. I am seek a written statement from the ATO (slow process)
and
> will now send the last information from DTT to them.
I have had a detailed discussion with Robert Hodge from the Australian
Super Funds Association.
Salient points:
- You do not list super on your form, because the ATO owns the debt.
- The ATO is able to make the claim on behalf of all of us (that is
to say for:
=> those whose only outstanding item was super AND ALSO
=> those who have other outstanding debts as well).
- The ATO is prevented by privacy law from actually saying what
action they are taking.
- We could try asking the Administrator whether they have received a
claim from the ATO.
The conclusion is that we are in a difficult situation, when it comes
to super.
More detail from ASFA:
- Under the old rules, super was to be paid once a year. The due
date for payment is 28 July 2002 (or 2003) for the 1 July - 30 June
year, and is payable to the MLC (or whatever) fund.
- If the super remains unpaid after that date (28 July 2002) then it
becomes a debt owed to the Tax Office (ATO). It is not a debt owed to
you, so you do not list it on your proof of debt form, and you do not
have any enforcement rights.
- We cannot ask the company (or administrator) to pay the overdue
super into our fund (MLC or otherwise). This answers Richard Watson's
question.
- We can notify the ATO given that our super has not been paid.
[While Paul has done this in a generalistic way, you may wish to write
a quick note to the ATO listing what you are owed. Get this figure
from the first Statement of Personal Entitlement issued last year. ]
- While the ATO is able to make a claim, there is no way that we can
force them to do so.
- If the ATO fails to claim, they (and us) may lose our rights to
ever claim on that super (which seems fairly obviously so from the
Deed).
- The super issue is legally a matter between the Company (as a
taxpayer) and the ATO. The privacy laws prohibit the ATO from
disclosing anything about this matter to any third party (including
any of us). This is probably why Paul is getting nonsense from them.
- When the Administrator pays the ATO (for super), the ATO works out
who our current fund is and pays the money. Robert wasn't too sure if
the ATO writes us a letter at that stage, but the voucher system they
used last year no longer operates.
My own thoughts ...
This places us into a difficult situation.
Obviously the same privacy laws do not apply to the Administrator, so
they may elect to tell us whether they have received a claim from the
ATO. We may be able to use recent additions to the privacy act that
gives us the right of access to personal information held by companies
(and administrators). We have a "beneficial interest" in the debt
owed to the ATO, and therefore have a beneficial interest in the
information about the ATO Super claim.
You can call the ASFA on (02) 9264 9300 or 1800 812798 (which works).
==========
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:11:11 +1000
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>
Subject: Re: Re: Circular To Employees - Superannuation issues
The statement "Employees should note that ...all amounts outstanding
wrt
Super...including assocaited penalties and interest...will be paid
directly
to ... ATO on your behalf" sounds binding on Deloitte.
They are not saying they are only going to pay if ATO claims it.
I note also that there are penalties and interest on the super. Woo
hoo.
Open a bottle of lemonade - a *large* one if you please!
==========
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:11:43 +1000
From: "Paul S Davis" <psdavis@a...>
Subject: Re: Re: Circular To Employees - Superannuation issues
> - You do not list super on your form, because the ATO owns the
debt.
In a phone conversation with the ATO they deny that owe the debt,
because as
usual we are covered by a DOCA and it is the IP responsibility. I'm try
to
get this in writing from the ATO.
========= End of summary ==========
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney) Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2003 1:54 PM
To: Paul Davis
Subject: RE: OT DOCA and Super
Paul,
The ATO will lodge one proof of debt (on the employees' behalf) which will
include the superannuation shortfall, interest and an administration fee
component which makes up the Superannuation Guarantee Charge. This will be
paid, in the form of a dividend, from the pool of funds available for
distribution to employees under the Deed of Company Arrangement. The
nominal interest component is calculated on each person's shortfall and is
passed onto the individual employee. The Administration fee is kept by the
tax office.
I hope this answers your question but if not, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Regards,
Sallie Muir
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Davis
Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2003 12:00 PM
To: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney)
Subject: OT DOCA and Super
Dear Sallie Muir,
The ATO has give me the following information on superannuation under a
DOCA.
The process of handling superannuation under a DOCA is covered by the Corp
Act. In this situation the superannuation is treated an unsecured debt.
1. The IP will inform the ATO of what dividens will be paid to each
employee.
2. The ATO will then make an assessment for each employee and calculate the
late fee and interest charges that are owed to each employee, this will
then be reported back to the IP.
3. The IP makes payment to the ATO.
4. The ATO distributes the dividens as vouchers to employees or as of
Dec-2003 can make payments directly to a nominated roll-over fund.
My question to Deloitte is where will funds to pay the late fee and
interest charges come from? Will this be a part of the funds made available
to employees under the DOCA?
regards
Paul Davis
Have a look at
http://www.ppbnsw.com/new/view_person.asp?PAGEID=2&STATEID=2&PERSONID=39
Turns out Steve Parbery had advised John Anderson and Peter Costello prior
to Mudgee.
Parbery was originally appointed administrator and was shortly after
appointed as receiver after his application to the court. So it appears he
is both receiver and administator.
http://www.aar.com.au/pubs/pdf/insol/foinsep01.pdf confirms that a company
can be in voluntary administration and receivership at the same time.
http://www.hunthunt.com.au/hunthunt/Publications/MoneyHuntMar00.pdf talks of
a company in receivership which was discharged when it went into
administration, resulting in a DoCA.
Hence it would seem that a DoCA is a possible outcome for Mudgee Abattoir
(although unlikely - since I doubt the current owners - the state
govt/council - want to keep it going under their control).
> For those who haven't delved into the Public File Archives, there is a
> document that Theo wrote, called GEERS.doc, which states that it is
> conceivable that under a Liquidation scenario, it is open to sell the
> business as a going concern.
Contrary to the advice of the administrators.
----- Original Message -----
From: "nick4mony" <no_reply@...>
To: <otmushrooms@...>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 2:44 PM
Subject: [otmushrooms] Re: It's not what you know, it's who you know. Mudgee
abattoir update.
> --- In otmushrooms@..., Elizabeth Fullerton
> <laslig@o...> wrote:
> > well, at least the system works. that system, anyway.
>
> ... which is a Receivership.
>
> > we simply chose the wrong system.
>
> ... being a Voluntary Administration and a Deed of Company Arrangement.
>
> The real question is whether a receivership is open to the same abuses
> as a VA/DoCA. Other questions:
> 1. Is there scope in a receivership for a Deed of Company Arrangement?
> 2. Is there scope to disturb the priorities of creditors in a
> receivership (or a DoCA derived from receivership)?
>
> For those who haven't delved into the Public File Archives, there is a
> document that Theo wrote, called GEERS.doc, which states that it is
> conceivable that under a Liquidation scenario, it is open to sell the
> business as a going concern.
>
> The advantage of this kind of process is that the liquidation is a
> very controlled process, and while there might be arguments of
> commercial judgement (eg choosing a buyer and a price), the
> distribution of money is very predictable, and GEERS is sure to pay
> those workers who are let go.
>
> The disadvantage is that (in most cases) the Directors lose the business.
>
> Nick Bishop
> -----
> Compulsory super was rejected 90:10 in a New Zealand referendum in 1996
> -oOo-
>
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members of
this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> Public file archives (Files for download)
> http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
--- In otmushrooms@..., Elizabeth Fullerton
<laslig@o...> wrote:
> well, at least the system works. that system, anyway.
... which is a Receivership.
> we simply chose the wrong system.
... being a Voluntary Administration and a Deed of Company Arrangement.
The real question is whether a receivership is open to the same abuses
as a VA/DoCA. Other questions:
1. Is there scope in a receivership for a Deed of Company Arrangement?
2. Is there scope to disturb the priorities of creditors in a
receivership (or a DoCA derived from receivership)?
For those who haven't delved into the Public File Archives, there is a
document that Theo wrote, called GEERS.doc, which states that it is
conceivable that under a Liquidation scenario, it is open to sell the
business as a going concern.
The advantage of this kind of process is that the liquidation is a
very controlled process, and while there might be arguments of
commercial judgement (eg choosing a buyer and a price), the
distribution of money is very predictable, and GEERS is sure to pay
those workers who are let go.
The disadvantage is that (in most cases) the Directors lose the business.
Nick Bishop
-----
Compulsory super was rejected 90:10 in a New Zealand referendum in 1996
-oOo-
No - wrong company. Wrong state.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elizabeth Fullerton [mailto:laslig@...]
> Sent: Friday, 14 November 2003 1:51 PM
> To: otmushrooms @ yahoogroups . com . au
> Subject: Re: [otmushrooms] It's not what you know, it's who you know.
> Mudgee abattoir update.
>
> well, at least the system works. that system, anyway. we simply chose the
> wrong
> system.
>
>
>
> > Tom Northey <tn@...> wrote:
> >
> > Mudgee abattoir workers will be paid **today** (14 Nov 03) by GEERS,
> > before
> > the administration of the abattoir has concluded (so DEWR doesn't
> > know if
> > the outcome will satisfy GEERS operational arrangements). This is
> > after NSW
> > govt rushed through special legislation to make the employees
> > priority
> > creditors (originially the NSW legislation for council workers said
> > employees were not priority creditors). Workers will get
> > approximately 80%
> > of entitlements, and they will be paid approx 2 months (yes two
> > months) of
> > the abattoir going into administration (the abattoir went into
> > administration on 9 Sep 03 - yes that's this year!).
> >
> > It's not what you know, it's who you know. Deputy Prime Minister and
> > Member
> > for Gwydir, John Anderson, is the local member for Mudgee.
> >
> > So make sure your next employer is the PM's brother (National
> > Textiles
> > workers got 100% of entitlements) or the local member is the deputy
> > PM.
> >
> > ****GEERS flowing today
> > Friday, 14 November 2003
> > Mudgee Guardian
> > http://tinyurl.com/uxn1 or
> >
> > Former abattoir workers who have applied for assistance under the
> > Federal
> > Government's General Employees Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme
> > (GEERS)
> > and have been approved will have their benefits deposited into their
> > bank
> > accounts today (Friday).
> > A spokesperson for receiver Steve Parbery said Parbery and his staff
> > had
> > worked around the clock since receiving $3.6 million from the Federal
> > Government earlier this week so workers could gain access to the
> > payment
> > today.
> > "To my knowledge not all workers have made application for GEERS and
> > any
> > former worker who has not completed the application is encouraged to
> > do so
> > as soon as possible," the spokesperson said.
> > The announcement from the receiver follows a press release from
> > Deputy Prime
> > Minister John Anderson's office Thursday saying $3.6 million had been
> > transferred to Parbery.
> > In other abattoir news a spokesperson said the extended time for
> > bidding to
> > purchase the abattoir ended Wednesday November 12.
> >
> >
> > ****Federal Government Helps Mudgee Abattoir Workers
> > 12 Nov 2003
> > DEWR
> > http://tinyurl.com/uxnz or
> >
> > Joint Media Release
> > The Hon John Anderson MP
> > The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional
> > Services
> > The Hon Kevin Andrews MP
> > Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister
> > Assisting the
> > Prime Minister for the Public Service
> >
> > THE Australian Government has today provided more than $3.6 million
> > for
> > former employees of the Mudgee Regional Abattoir.
> > Deputy Prime Minister and Member for Gwydir John Anderson and
> > Minister for
> > Employment and Workplace Relations Kevin Andrews announced the money
> > had
> > been given to the insolvency practitioner to be passed to the
> > workers.
> >
> > The $3.6 million was paid out under the Australian Government's
> > General
> > Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme (GEERS).
> >
> > "This is great news for the 230 former workers, their families and
> > the
> > community and follows my representations to the Federal Minister
> > (Employment
> > and Workplace Relations) in September," Mr Anderson said.
> >
> > "Providing the GEERS safety net assistance to the workers of the
> > County
> > Council owned abattoir was originally in doubt due to a legal
> > loophole in
> > the NSW Local Government Act.
> >
> > "But after discussions between the Australian and NSW Governments,
> > the NSW
> > Government agreed to amend the loophole to include insolvency
> > provisions and
> > allow for GEERS payments."
> >
> > Mr Andrews said the insolvency practitioner managing the winding up
> > of the
> > abattoirs, Mr Steve Parbery of Prentice Parbery Barilla, will
> > distribute the
> > $3.6 million.
> >
> > "Employers are responsible for employee entitlements," Mr Andrews
> > said.
> >
> > "However, the Australian Government was the first to introduce a
> > safety net
> > scheme protecting workers who lose their jobs and their entitlements
> > due to
> > their employer's insolvency.
> >
> > "More than $125 million in GEERS payments have been provided to more
> > than
> > 12,500 Australians.
> >
> > "More than 81 per cent of GEERS recipients have received all their
> > outstanding wages, annual leave, long service leave, pay in lieu of
> > notice
> > and redundancy entitlements."
> >
> > For more details about the Australian Government's employee
> > entitlements
> > safety net schemes go to www.workplace.gov.au.
> > For media inquiries, contact
> > Clare Siddins Mr Andersons office 0427 200 674
> > Felicity Dargan Minister Andrews office 0409 550 446
> >
> >
> > ****Ex abattoir workers enjoy partial entitlements win
> > ABC Radio
> > 13 Nov 2003
> > http://abc.net.au/news/australia/nsw/archive/metnsw-13nov2003-4.htm
> >
> > Former employees from the Mudgee abattoir in central western New
> > South Wales
> > should have at least part of what they are owed in their bank
> > accounts by
> > the end of the week.
> >
> > The 230 workers lost their jobs when the abattoir shut in September.
> >
> > The Deputy Prime Minister and Member for Gwydir, John Anderson, says
> > $3.6
> > million has now been made available to the workers under the Federal
> > Government's General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme.
> >
> > "I'm very glad now that this matter's been resolved well ahead of
> > Christmas," he said.
> >
> > "It's a bit of good news in the tragedy of the jobs lost. I should
> > say at
> > the outset though that I sincerely hope that a purchaser for the
> > abattoir
> > will be found and that jobs will re-emerge in the future."
> >
> > Mr Anderson says money will be put into employee bank accounts as
> > quickly as
> > possible.
> >
> > "As soon as they can get their applications into the administration,
> > be
> > verified that they are who they say they are and the match be worked
> > out...then I think that can happen pretty well immediately," he said.
> >
> > The southern region manager for the United Services Union, Graham
> > Kelly,
> > says while workers are still owed more than $1 million, it is good
> > news the
> > workers will finally get some money.
> >
> > "They're working very feverishly to get that money into the banks by
> > Friday," he said.
> >
> > "The only hiccup that may occur is that there may be some bank
> > details from
> > former employees that may be outstanding...so it is great news and
> > everyone
> > is entitled to feel pleased with what we've achieved.
> >
> > "I'd like to thank the ratepayers and all those people in the Mudgee
> > Shire
> > that have stood by those abattoir workers.
> >
> > "It's been a great effort and certainly we'll be holding a big family
> > day
> > around the 14th of September to get together and celebrate our
> > entitlement
> > win."
> >
> >
> > Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members
> > of this group) can read this message in the archives.
> >
> > Useful links:
> > OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> > Public file archives (Files for download)
> > http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> > http://mudgee.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=local&c
> > ategory=abattoir%20uncertainty&story_id=267603&y=2003&m=11
> > http://www.dewr.gov.au/ministersAndMediaCentre/mediacentre/detail.asp
> > ?keywords=&title=&creator=&type=&month=&year=&index=&show=2781
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members of
> this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> Public file archives (Files for download)
> http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
well, at least the system works. that system, anyway. we simply chose the wrong
system.
> Tom Northey <tn@...> wrote:
>
> Mudgee abattoir workers will be paid **today** (14 Nov 03) by GEERS,
> before
> the administration of the abattoir has concluded (so DEWR doesn't
> know if
> the outcome will satisfy GEERS operational arrangements). This is
> after NSW
> govt rushed through special legislation to make the employees
> priority
> creditors (originially the NSW legislation for council workers said
> employees were not priority creditors). Workers will get
> approximately 80%
> of entitlements, and they will be paid approx 2 months (yes two
> months) of
> the abattoir going into administration (the abattoir went into
> administration on 9 Sep 03 - yes that's this year!).
>
> It's not what you know, it's who you know. Deputy Prime Minister and
> Member
> for Gwydir, John Anderson, is the local member for Mudgee.
>
> So make sure your next employer is the PM's brother (National
> Textiles
> workers got 100% of entitlements) or the local member is the deputy
> PM.
>
> ****GEERS flowing today
> Friday, 14 November 2003
> Mudgee Guardian
> http://tinyurl.com/uxn1 or
>
> Former abattoir workers who have applied for assistance under the
> Federal
> Government's General Employees Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme
> (GEERS)
> and have been approved will have their benefits deposited into their
> bank
> accounts today (Friday).
> A spokesperson for receiver Steve Parbery said Parbery and his staff
> had
> worked around the clock since receiving $3.6 million from the Federal
> Government earlier this week so workers could gain access to the
> payment
> today.
> "To my knowledge not all workers have made application for GEERS and
> any
> former worker who has not completed the application is encouraged to
> do so
> as soon as possible," the spokesperson said.
> The announcement from the receiver follows a press release from
> Deputy Prime
> Minister John Anderson's office Thursday saying $3.6 million had been
> transferred to Parbery.
> In other abattoir news a spokesperson said the extended time for
> bidding to
> purchase the abattoir ended Wednesday November 12.
>
>
> ****Federal Government Helps Mudgee Abattoir Workers
> 12 Nov 2003
> DEWR
> http://tinyurl.com/uxnz or
>
> Joint Media Release
> The Hon John Anderson MP
> The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional
> Services
> The Hon Kevin Andrews MP
> Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister
> Assisting the
> Prime Minister for the Public Service
>
> THE Australian Government has today provided more than $3.6 million
> for
> former employees of the Mudgee Regional Abattoir.
> Deputy Prime Minister and Member for Gwydir John Anderson and
> Minister for
> Employment and Workplace Relations Kevin Andrews announced the money
> had
> been given to the insolvency practitioner to be passed to the
> workers.
>
> The $3.6 million was paid out under the Australian Government's
> General
> Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme (GEERS).
>
> "This is great news for the 230 former workers, their families and
> the
> community and follows my representations to the Federal Minister
> (Employment
> and Workplace Relations) in September," Mr Anderson said.
>
> "Providing the GEERS safety net assistance to the workers of the
> County
> Council owned abattoir was originally in doubt due to a legal
> loophole in
> the NSW Local Government Act.
>
> "But after discussions between the Australian and NSW Governments,
> the NSW
> Government agreed to amend the loophole to include insolvency
> provisions and
> allow for GEERS payments."
>
> Mr Andrews said the insolvency practitioner managing the winding up
> of the
> abattoirs, Mr Steve Parbery of Prentice Parbery Barilla, will
> distribute the
> $3.6 million.
>
> "Employers are responsible for employee entitlements," Mr Andrews
> said.
>
> "However, the Australian Government was the first to introduce a
> safety net
> scheme protecting workers who lose their jobs and their entitlements
> due to
> their employer's insolvency.
>
> "More than $125 million in GEERS payments have been provided to more
> than
> 12,500 Australians.
>
> "More than 81 per cent of GEERS recipients have received all their
> outstanding wages, annual leave, long service leave, pay in lieu of
> notice
> and redundancy entitlements."
>
> For more details about the Australian Government's employee
> entitlements
> safety net schemes go to www.workplace.gov.au.
> For media inquiries, contact
> Clare Siddins Mr Andersons office 0427 200 674
> Felicity Dargan Minister Andrews office 0409 550 446
>
>
> ****Ex abattoir workers enjoy partial entitlements win
> ABC Radio
> 13 Nov 2003
> http://abc.net.au/news/australia/nsw/archive/metnsw-13nov2003-4.htm
>
> Former employees from the Mudgee abattoir in central western New
> South Wales
> should have at least part of what they are owed in their bank
> accounts by
> the end of the week.
>
> The 230 workers lost their jobs when the abattoir shut in September.
>
> The Deputy Prime Minister and Member for Gwydir, John Anderson, says
> $3.6
> million has now been made available to the workers under the Federal
> Government's General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme.
>
> "I'm very glad now that this matter's been resolved well ahead of
> Christmas," he said.
>
> "It's a bit of good news in the tragedy of the jobs lost. I should
> say at
> the outset though that I sincerely hope that a purchaser for the
> abattoir
> will be found and that jobs will re-emerge in the future."
>
> Mr Anderson says money will be put into employee bank accounts as
> quickly as
> possible.
>
> "As soon as they can get their applications into the administration,
> be
> verified that they are who they say they are and the match be worked
> out...then I think that can happen pretty well immediately," he said.
>
> The southern region manager for the United Services Union, Graham
> Kelly,
> says while workers are still owed more than $1 million, it is good
> news the
> workers will finally get some money.
>
> "They're working very feverishly to get that money into the banks by
> Friday," he said.
>
> "The only hiccup that may occur is that there may be some bank
> details from
> former employees that may be outstanding...so it is great news and
> everyone
> is entitled to feel pleased with what we've achieved.
>
> "I'd like to thank the ratepayers and all those people in the Mudgee
> Shire
> that have stood by those abattoir workers.
>
> "It's been a great effort and certainly we'll be holding a big family
> day
> around the 14th of September to get together and celebrate our
> entitlement
> win."
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members
> of this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> Public file archives (Files for download)
> http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> http://mudgee.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=local&c
> ategory=abattoir%20uncertainty&story_id=267603&y=2003&m=11
> http://www.dewr.gov.au/ministersAndMediaCentre/mediacentre/detail.asp
> ?keywords=&title=&creator=&type=&month=&year=&index=&show=2781
Mudgee abattoir workers will be paid **today** (14 Nov 03) by GEERS, before
the administration of the abattoir has concluded (so DEWR doesn't know if
the outcome will satisfy GEERS operational arrangements). This is after NSW
govt rushed through special legislation to make the employees priority
creditors (originially the NSW legislation for council workers said
employees were not priority creditors). Workers will get approximately 80%
of entitlements, and they will be paid approx 2 months (yes two months) of
the abattoir going into administration (the abattoir went into
administration on 9 Sep 03 - yes that's this year!).
It's not what you know, it's who you know. Deputy Prime Minister and Member
for Gwydir, John Anderson, is the local member for Mudgee.
So make sure your next employer is the PM's brother (National Textiles
workers got 100% of entitlements) or the local member is the deputy PM.
****GEERS flowing today
Friday, 14 November 2003
Mudgee Guardian
http://tinyurl.com/uxn1 or
http://mudgee.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=local&category=aba\
ttoir%20uncertainty&story_id=267603&y=2003&m=11
Former abattoir workers who have applied for assistance under the Federal
Government's General Employees Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme (GEERS)
and have been approved will have their benefits deposited into their bank
accounts today (Friday).
A spokesperson for receiver Steve Parbery said Parbery and his staff had
worked around the clock since receiving $3.6 million from the Federal
Government earlier this week so workers could gain access to the payment
today.
"To my knowledge not all workers have made application for GEERS and any
former worker who has not completed the application is encouraged to do so
as soon as possible," the spokesperson said.
The announcement from the receiver follows a press release from Deputy Prime
Minister John Anderson's office Thursday saying $3.6 million had been
transferred to Parbery.
In other abattoir news a spokesperson said the extended time for bidding to
purchase the abattoir ended Wednesday November 12.
****Federal Government Helps Mudgee Abattoir Workers
12 Nov 2003
DEWR
http://tinyurl.com/uxnz or
http://www.dewr.gov.au/ministersAndMediaCentre/mediacentre/detail.asp?keywords=&\
title=&creator=&type=&month=&year=&index=&show=2781
Joint Media Release
The Hon John Anderson MP
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services
The Hon Kevin Andrews MP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the
Prime Minister for the Public Service
THE Australian Government has today provided more than $3.6 million for
former employees of the Mudgee Regional Abattoir.
Deputy Prime Minister and Member for Gwydir John Anderson and Minister for
Employment and Workplace Relations Kevin Andrews announced the money had
been given to the insolvency practitioner to be passed to the workers.
The $3.6 million was paid out under the Australian Government's General
Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme (GEERS).
"This is great news for the 230 former workers, their families and the
community and follows my representations to the Federal Minister (Employment
and Workplace Relations) in September," Mr Anderson said.
"Providing the GEERS safety net assistance to the workers of the County
Council owned abattoir was originally in doubt due to a legal loophole in
the NSW Local Government Act.
"But after discussions between the Australian and NSW Governments, the NSW
Government agreed to amend the loophole to include insolvency provisions and
allow for GEERS payments."
Mr Andrews said the insolvency practitioner managing the winding up of the
abattoirs, Mr Steve Parbery of Prentice Parbery Barilla, will distribute the
$3.6 million.
"Employers are responsible for employee entitlements," Mr Andrews said.
"However, the Australian Government was the first to introduce a safety net
scheme protecting workers who lose their jobs and their entitlements due to
their employer's insolvency.
"More than $125 million in GEERS payments have been provided to more than
12,500 Australians.
"More than 81 per cent of GEERS recipients have received all their
outstanding wages, annual leave, long service leave, pay in lieu of notice
and redundancy entitlements."
For more details about the Australian Government's employee entitlements
safety net schemes go to www.workplace.gov.au.
For media inquiries, contact
Clare Siddins Mr Andersons office 0427 200 674
Felicity Dargan Minister Andrews office 0409 550 446
****Ex abattoir workers enjoy partial entitlements win
ABC Radio
13 Nov 2003
http://abc.net.au/news/australia/nsw/archive/metnsw-13nov2003-4.htm
Former employees from the Mudgee abattoir in central western New South Wales
should have at least part of what they are owed in their bank accounts by
the end of the week.
The 230 workers lost their jobs when the abattoir shut in September.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Member for Gwydir, John Anderson, says $3.6
million has now been made available to the workers under the Federal
Government's General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme.
"I'm very glad now that this matter's been resolved well ahead of
Christmas," he said.
"It's a bit of good news in the tragedy of the jobs lost. I should say at
the outset though that I sincerely hope that a purchaser for the abattoir
will be found and that jobs will re-emerge in the future."
Mr Anderson says money will be put into employee bank accounts as quickly as
possible.
"As soon as they can get their applications into the administration, be
verified that they are who they say they are and the match be worked
out...then I think that can happen pretty well immediately," he said.
The southern region manager for the United Services Union, Graham Kelly,
says while workers are still owed more than $1 million, it is good news the
workers will finally get some money.
"They're working very feverishly to get that money into the banks by
Friday," he said.
"The only hiccup that may occur is that there may be some bank details from
former employees that may be outstanding...so it is great news and everyone
is entitled to feel pleased with what we've achieved.
"I'd like to thank the ratepayers and all those people in the Mudgee Shire
that have stood by those abattoir workers.
"It's been a great effort and certainly we'll be holding a big family day
around the 14th of September to get together and celebrate our entitlement
win."
This is applicable to all employees, whether employed at OT or
anywhere else.
Your employer had until 28 Oct 2003 to pay your super contributions to
your fund (most OT contributions go to MLC). This covers the period
from 1 July to 30 Sept 2003.
There was also another deadline of 28 July 2003 which covers the whole
period from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003.
If you have doubts about whether your employer paid up, make some
enquiries.
Nick Bishop
-----
Smoking: when all else fails, give up.
-oOo-
Jason Gowers
>From: nick4mony <no_reply@...>
>Reply-To: otmushrooms@...
>To: otmushrooms@...
>Subject: [otmushrooms] Does anyone know safadao@... ?
>Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:42:12 -0000
>
>I have a hard bouncing email address ...@ tpg.com.au . It is not on
>openVictims.
>
>Does anyone know who this is? If not, I'll kick it off next week.
>
>Nick Bishop.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
I have a hard bouncing email address ...@ tpg.com.au . It is not on
openVictims.
Does anyone know who this is? If not, I'll kick it off next week.
Nick Bishop.
I received a call from Morgan Kelly but was not available to take the call.
I have returned his call but only to get his answering machine service. At
least by Darryl's email, I know what it is in relation to. Something has
gone our way for a change.
Thanks.
Mark Shannon
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Fullerton [mailto:laslig@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2003 8:18 AM
To: otmushrooms @ yahoogroups . com . au
Subject: Re: Re: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
Thanks for that Daryl.
Pity they aren't taking it upon *themselves* to notify people...
> Daryl & Carmel Benham <dcbenham@...> wrote:
>
> I was following up on the issue about Notice period with Morgan Kelly
> from
> DTT because I am eligible for the award but my contract specifies 1
> months
> notice which is more than the award provides for.
>
> My legal advice has been that the award provides a safety net but
> where the
> contract specifically addresses a matter the contract of employment
> overrides the award to the extent of any inconsistency. Since the
> contract
> is silent on Redundancy the award stands, however since the contract
> specifies notice period of 1 month the contract overrides the award
> on this
> matter.
>
> Morgan rang me this afternoon to confirm that he had been informed by
> DTT's
> legal representatives that my legal advice was correct and to notify
> other
> people about this information.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daryl Benham.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Shannon" <mshannon@...>
> To: <otmushrooms@...>
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 4:59 PM
> Subject: RE: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
>
>
> > Along Steve's question/statement,
> >
> > I just got a call from Morgan Kelly from DTT after chasing up
> yesterday's
> > enquiry by me on the same thing as Steve is talking about,"Notice".
> Morgan
> > said someone else also complained to him about the "Notice" going
> back
> from
> > one month to two weeks when applying the award. He called to let me
> know,
> as
> > a courtesy, that he's legal advice has not yet got back to him but
> will on
> > Monday. He then started to say something but stopped and said I'll
> wait
> > until then. In that start - stop sentence, he said ".....I thought
> with
> this
> > award......." which indicated that he was about to say his
> interpretation
> > was not right which was highlighted by the tone of his voice and
> with a
> > polite retreat. Only my thoughts though, but he'd let me know more
> on
> > Monday.
> >
> > This is about "Notice" in regards to the award and our contract,
> where
> only
> > the contract overwrites the award, not the other way around as they
> have
> > tried to do. That is, the award is your safety net and your
> contract is up
> > and above that. You don't get one or the other. Therefore, if a
> condition
> is
> > not stated in your contract then you go back to the award for that
> > condition. If any of you have the same situation, my suggestion is
> to
> > email/call him (or Sallie) and let them know. I think most of our
> contracts
> > with OT had stipulated one months notice. So, if you are like me of
> only
> > having being there for 18 months (under 2 years) and with being
> APESMA
> > eligible being forced to go back to two weeks notice, then they
> maybe
> trying
> > to dud you on 2.33 weeks of notice. Or, it could be an honest
> interpretation
> > error....going there way.
> >
> > If you wanted more, please read back yesterdays email.
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Gerlach [mailto:gerlach@...]
> > Sent: Friday, 24 October 2003 3:36 PM
> > To: otmushrooms@...
> > Subject: RE: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
> >
> >
> > What I can't understand is why some of us received 4 weeks and some
> of
> > us 2. Surely our contracts were the same?
> >
> > Another DTT cock up??? Surely NOT!!!! Ahuh, of course...
> >
> > SG
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Elizabeth Fullerton [mailto:laslig@...]
> > > Sent: Friday, 24 October 2003 8:42 AM
> > > To: otmushrooms @ yahoogroups . com . au
> > > Subject: Re: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
> > >
> > > Mark, as far as I'm concerned, the award gives minimum amounts.
> My
> > > contract
> > > states one month's notice, that's what they owe me, that's what
> I'm
> > > claiming.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Mark Shannon <mshannon@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > G'Day all,
> > > >
> > > > I just got a reply back from Sallie regarding the notice.
> Earlier I
> > > > stated
> > > > that I had only two weeks notice instead of one months denoted
> on my
> > > > contract. By proving my APESMA legibility, I lose my one months
> > > > notice back
> > > > to two weeks, but get one months redundancy instead of two
> weeks.
> > > > Therefore,
> > > > I gain absolutely nothing. If you have the inclination, read my
> > > > request to
> > > > Sallie, her reply and finally my reply to her again (which I
> have
> > > > just
> > > > sent). Give her credit, she at least responds.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mark Shannon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Sallie,
> > > >
> > > > Firstly, please excuse me for misspelling your name in previous
> > > > emails.
> > > >
> > > > With your comments, respectively I disagree with your points in
> that
> > > > firstly, the whole purpose of proving my eligibility was for
> the one
> > > > month
> > > > notice which was standard OT practice for redundant people, yet
> DTT
> > > > denied
> > > > it as being applicable to us. It did not at any stage wipe out
> my
> > > > entitlements on notice. Nor did they state this would happen.
> > > >
> > > > Just to outline the situation, I (amongst many others) were
> given
> > one
> > > > months
> > > > notice (which is on my employee agreement). On being made
> redundant
> > I
> > > > was
> > > > only given two weeks redundancy in which this length of
> redundancy
> > > > went
> > > > against the trend of ALL previously made redundant people.
> Then, DTT
> > > > stated
> > > > that if you can prove eligibility to APESMA, we'll give you one
> > > > months
> > > > redundancy. It never said, you would lose out on other things.
> > > > Surely, DTT
> > > > are playing with semantics and outside of human decency? They
> are
> > > > hiding
> > > > behind every curtain. Even the Department of Employment and
> > Workplace
> > > > Relations admitted that it was common OT practice to give one
> > month's
> > > > notice. Now, you are saying you can have one or the other? I
> think
> > > > that is
> > > > unfair Sallie and with respect totally beyond belief. I do not
> > accept
> > > > this.
> > > >
> > > > In summary, I have the right to one months and proven at DTT's
> > > > request one
> > > > months redundancy. Please do not forget the fact that we, as
> > > > ex-employees of
> > > > OT, were:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Unemployed for a period of extended time (in my case 2
> > > > months...bills,
> > > > mortgages, new born baby etc)
> > > >
> > > > 2) Have waited 15 months now and 17 months by the time of the
> first
> > > > payment
> > > >
> > > > 3) The company is now up and running again and not going to pay
> us
> > > > out in
> > > > full
> > > >
> > > > 4) and the big bonus, whatever is worked out to be the final
> figure,
> > > > we only
> > > > get 43% of what we entitled to less the percentage of the total
> pool
> > > > of
> > > > funds divided by the total owed.
> > > >
> > > > Respectively, again I disagree with DTT assessment as my
> employee
> > > > agreement
> > > > gives me one months notice and as it is not stated on my
> employee
> > > > agreement,
> > > > APESMA eligibility gives me one months redundancy (as per DTT
> > > > request).
> > > >
> > > > Sallie, so what happens now please?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your time.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > >
> > > > Mark Shannon
> > > >
> > > > Ph: 03 9396 1599
> > > >
> > > > Fax: 03 9396 1627
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >
> > > > From: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney)
> [mailto:smuire@...]
> > > >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 3:15 PM
> > > >
> > > > To: Mark Shannon
> > > >
> > > > Subject: RE: Entitlements
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mark,
> > > >
> > > > If you refer to our circular to employees dated 28 August 2003,
> we
> > > > discussed
> > > > the issue of notice & redundancy. We noted that your employment
> > > > contract
> > > > does provide for one months notice, however redundancy in
> addition
> > to
> > > > that
> > > > one months notice was not payable. Because of this, we then
> gave
> > > > employees
> > > > the opportunity to prove their eligibility for APESMA (which
> you
> > > > have), in
> > > > which case we would then pay out the notice & redundancy in
> > > > accordance
> > > > with the Award. In your case the Award provides for 2 weeks
> > notice
> > > > & 4
> > > > weeks redundancy. In the event that the dollar value of the
> Award
> > > > entitlements was less than the one month's notice we would
> apply the
> > > > one
> > > > months notice.
> > > >
> > > > Hope this has clarified it for you, if not please let me know.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sallie Muir
> > > >
> > > > Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
> > > >
> > > > (02) 9322 5621
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >
> > > > From: Mark Shannon [mailto:mshannon@...]
> > > >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 1:34 PM
> > > >
> > > > To: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney)
> > > >
> > > > Subject: RE: Entitlements
> > > >
> > > > Hi Sally,
> > > >
> > > > I received my entitlements letter last night. The only thing
> that
> > > > seems to
> > > > be incorrect is the "Period of Notice" amount/time. I am
> believe it
> > > > is for
> > > > one month not two weeks as indicated. All else is correct. Can
> you
> > > > please
> > > > confirm or advise.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you in advance.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > >
> > > > Mark Shannon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
> and
> > > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
> they
> > > > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> > notify
> > > > the system manager.
> > > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
> swept
> > by
> > > > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> > > > www.mimesweeper.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including
> > non-members
> > > > of this group) can read this message in the archives.
> > > >
> > > > Useful links:
> > > > OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> > > > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
<http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/>
> > > > Public file archives (Files for download)
> > > > http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
<http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm>
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> *********************************************************************
> > > > *
> > > >
> >
> *********************************************************************
> > > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including
> non-members
> > of
> > > this group) can read this message in the archives.
> > >
> > > Useful links:
> > > OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> > > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
<http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/>
> > > Public file archives (Files for download)
> > > http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
<http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm>
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system ( http://www.grisoft.com).
<http://www.grisoft.com).>
> > > Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003
> > >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system ( http://www.grisoft.com).
<http://www.grisoft.com).>
> > Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003
> >
> >
> >
> > Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including
> non-members of
> > this group) can read this message in the archives.
> >
> > Useful links:
> > OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
<http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/>
> > Public file archives (Files for download)
> > http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
<http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm>
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> >
> >
> >
> > Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including
> non-members of
> this group) can read this message in the archives.
> >
> > Useful links:
> > OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
<http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/>
> > Public file archives (Files for download)
> > http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
<http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm>
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members
> of this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
<http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/>
> Public file archives (Files for download)
> http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
<http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>
Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members of
this group) can read this message in the archives.
Useful links:
OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
<http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/>
Public file archives (Files for download)
http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
<http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks for that Daryl.
Pity they aren't taking it upon *themselves* to notify people...
> Daryl & Carmel Benham <dcbenham@...> wrote:
>
> I was following up on the issue about Notice period with Morgan Kelly
> from
> DTT because I am eligible for the award but my contract specifies 1
> months
> notice which is more than the award provides for.
>
> My legal advice has been that the award provides a safety net but
> where the
> contract specifically addresses a matter the contract of employment
> overrides the award to the extent of any inconsistency. Since the
> contract
> is silent on Redundancy the award stands, however since the contract
> specifies notice period of 1 month the contract overrides the award
> on this
> matter.
>
> Morgan rang me this afternoon to confirm that he had been informed by
> DTT's
> legal representatives that my legal advice was correct and to notify
> other
> people about this information.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daryl Benham.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Shannon" <mshannon@...>
> To: <otmushrooms@...>
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 4:59 PM
> Subject: RE: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
>
>
> > Along Steve's question/statement,
> >
> > I just got a call from Morgan Kelly from DTT after chasing up
> yesterday's
> > enquiry by me on the same thing as Steve is talking about,"Notice".
> Morgan
> > said someone else also complained to him about the "Notice" going
> back
> from
> > one month to two weeks when applying the award. He called to let me
> know,
> as
> > a courtesy, that he's legal advice has not yet got back to him but
> will on
> > Monday. He then started to say something but stopped and said I'll
> wait
> > until then. In that start - stop sentence, he said ".....I thought
> with
> this
> > award......." which indicated that he was about to say his
> interpretation
> > was not right which was highlighted by the tone of his voice and
> with a
> > polite retreat. Only my thoughts though, but he'd let me know more
> on
> > Monday.
> >
> > This is about "Notice" in regards to the award and our contract,
> where
> only
> > the contract overwrites the award, not the other way around as they
> have
> > tried to do. That is, the award is your safety net and your
> contract is up
> > and above that. You don't get one or the other. Therefore, if a
> condition
> is
> > not stated in your contract then you go back to the award for that
> > condition. If any of you have the same situation, my suggestion is
> to
> > email/call him (or Sallie) and let them know. I think most of our
> contracts
> > with OT had stipulated one months notice. So, if you are like me of
> only
> > having being there for 18 months (under 2 years) and with being
> APESMA
> > eligible being forced to go back to two weeks notice, then they
> maybe
> trying
> > to dud you on 2.33 weeks of notice. Or, it could be an honest
> interpretation
> > error....going there way.
> >
> > If you wanted more, please read back yesterdays email.
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Gerlach [mailto:gerlach@...]
> > Sent: Friday, 24 October 2003 3:36 PM
> > To: otmushrooms@...
> > Subject: RE: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
> >
> >
> > What I can't understand is why some of us received 4 weeks and some
> of
> > us 2. Surely our contracts were the same?
> >
> > Another DTT cock up??? Surely NOT!!!! Ahuh, of course...
> >
> > SG
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Elizabeth Fullerton [mailto:laslig@...]
> > > Sent: Friday, 24 October 2003 8:42 AM
> > > To: otmushrooms @ yahoogroups . com . au
> > > Subject: Re: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
> > >
> > > Mark, as far as I'm concerned, the award gives minimum amounts.
> My
> > > contract
> > > states one month's notice, that's what they owe me, that's what
> I'm
> > > claiming.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Mark Shannon <mshannon@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > G'Day all,
> > > >
> > > > I just got a reply back from Sallie regarding the notice.
> Earlier I
> > > > stated
> > > > that I had only two weeks notice instead of one months denoted
> on my
> > > > contract. By proving my APESMA legibility, I lose my one months
> > > > notice back
> > > > to two weeks, but get one months redundancy instead of two
> weeks.
> > > > Therefore,
> > > > I gain absolutely nothing. If you have the inclination, read my
> > > > request to
> > > > Sallie, her reply and finally my reply to her again (which I
> have
> > > > just
> > > > sent). Give her credit, she at least responds.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mark Shannon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Sallie,
> > > >
> > > > Firstly, please excuse me for misspelling your name in previous
> > > > emails.
> > > >
> > > > With your comments, respectively I disagree with your points in
> that
> > > > firstly, the whole purpose of proving my eligibility was for
> the one
> > > > month
> > > > notice which was standard OT practice for redundant people, yet
> DTT
> > > > denied
> > > > it as being applicable to us. It did not at any stage wipe out
> my
> > > > entitlements on notice. Nor did they state this would happen.
> > > >
> > > > Just to outline the situation, I (amongst many others) were
> given
> > one
> > > > months
> > > > notice (which is on my employee agreement). On being made
> redundant
> > I
> > > > was
> > > > only given two weeks redundancy in which this length of
> redundancy
> > > > went
> > > > against the trend of ALL previously made redundant people.
> Then, DTT
> > > > stated
> > > > that if you can prove eligibility to APESMA, we'll give you one
> > > > months
> > > > redundancy. It never said, you would lose out on other things.
> > > > Surely, DTT
> > > > are playing with semantics and outside of human decency? They
> are
> > > > hiding
> > > > behind every curtain. Even the Department of Employment and
> > Workplace
> > > > Relations admitted that it was common OT practice to give one
> > month's
> > > > notice. Now, you are saying you can have one or the other? I
> think
> > > > that is
> > > > unfair Sallie and with respect totally beyond belief. I do not
> > accept
> > > > this.
> > > >
> > > > In summary, I have the right to one months and proven at DTT's
> > > > request one
> > > > months redundancy. Please do not forget the fact that we, as
> > > > ex-employees of
> > > > OT, were:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Unemployed for a period of extended time (in my case 2
> > > > months...bills,
> > > > mortgages, new born baby etc)
> > > >
> > > > 2) Have waited 15 months now and 17 months by the time of the
> first
> > > > payment
> > > >
> > > > 3) The company is now up and running again and not going to pay
> us
> > > > out in
> > > > full
> > > >
> > > > 4) and the big bonus, whatever is worked out to be the final
> figure,
> > > > we only
> > > > get 43% of what we entitled to less the percentage of the total
> pool
> > > > of
> > > > funds divided by the total owed.
> > > >
> > > > Respectively, again I disagree with DTT assessment as my
> employee
> > > > agreement
> > > > gives me one months notice and as it is not stated on my
> employee
> > > > agreement,
> > > > APESMA eligibility gives me one months redundancy (as per DTT
> > > > request).
> > > >
> > > > Sallie, so what happens now please?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your time.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > >
> > > > Mark Shannon
> > > >
> > > > Ph: 03 9396 1599
> > > >
> > > > Fax: 03 9396 1627
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >
> > > > From: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney)
> [mailto:smuire@...]
> > > >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 3:15 PM
> > > >
> > > > To: Mark Shannon
> > > >
> > > > Subject: RE: Entitlements
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mark,
> > > >
> > > > If you refer to our circular to employees dated 28 August 2003,
> we
> > > > discussed
> > > > the issue of notice & redundancy. We noted that your employment
> > > > contract
> > > > does provide for one months notice, however redundancy in
> addition
> > to
> > > > that
> > > > one months notice was not payable. Because of this, we then
> gave
> > > > employees
> > > > the opportunity to prove their eligibility for APESMA (which
> you
> > > > have), in
> > > > which case we would then pay out the notice & redundancy in
> > > > accordance
> > > > with the Award. In your case the Award provides for 2 weeks
> > notice
> > > > & 4
> > > > weeks redundancy. In the event that the dollar value of the
> Award
> > > > entitlements was less than the one month's notice we would
> apply the
> > > > one
> > > > months notice.
> > > >
> > > > Hope this has clarified it for you, if not please let me know.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sallie Muir
> > > >
> > > > Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
> > > >
> > > > (02) 9322 5621
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >
> > > > From: Mark Shannon [mailto:mshannon@...]
> > > >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 1:34 PM
> > > >
> > > > To: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney)
> > > >
> > > > Subject: RE: Entitlements
> > > >
> > > > Hi Sally,
> > > >
> > > > I received my entitlements letter last night. The only thing
> that
> > > > seems to
> > > > be incorrect is the "Period of Notice" amount/time. I am
> believe it
> > > > is for
> > > > one month not two weeks as indicated. All else is correct. Can
> you
> > > > please
> > > > confirm or advise.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you in advance.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > >
> > > > Mark Shannon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
> and
> > > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
> they
> > > > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> > notify
> > > > the system manager.
> > > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
> swept
> > by
> > > > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> > > > www.mimesweeper.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including
> > non-members
> > > > of this group) can read this message in the archives.
> > > >
> > > > Useful links:
> > > > OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> > > > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> > > > Public file archives (Files for download)
> > > > http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> *********************************************************************
> > > > *
> > > >
> >
> *********************************************************************
> > > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including
> non-members
> > of
> > > this group) can read this message in the archives.
> > >
> > > Useful links:
> > > OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> > > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> > > Public file archives (Files for download)
> > > http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003
> > >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003
> >
> >
> >
> > Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including
> non-members of
> > this group) can read this message in the archives.
> >
> > Useful links:
> > OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> > Public file archives (Files for download)
> > http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including
> non-members of
> this group) can read this message in the archives.
> >
> > Useful links:
> > OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> > Public file archives (Files for download)
> > http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members
> of this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> Public file archives (Files for download)
> http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
I was following up on the issue about Notice period with Morgan Kelly from
DTT because I am eligible for the award but my contract specifies 1 months
notice which is more than the award provides for.
My legal advice has been that the award provides a safety net but where the
contract specifically addresses a matter the contract of employment
overrides the award to the extent of any inconsistency. Since the contract
is silent on Redundancy the award stands, however since the contract
specifies notice period of 1 month the contract overrides the award on this
matter.
Morgan rang me this afternoon to confirm that he had been informed by DTT's
legal representatives that my legal advice was correct and to notify other
people about this information.
Regards,
Daryl Benham.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Shannon" <mshannon@...>
To: <otmushrooms@...>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 4:59 PM
Subject: RE: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
> Along Steve's question/statement,
>
> I just got a call from Morgan Kelly from DTT after chasing up yesterday's
> enquiry by me on the same thing as Steve is talking about,"Notice". Morgan
> said someone else also complained to him about the "Notice" going back
from
> one month to two weeks when applying the award. He called to let me know,
as
> a courtesy, that he's legal advice has not yet got back to him but will on
> Monday. He then started to say something but stopped and said I'll wait
> until then. In that start - stop sentence, he said ".....I thought with
this
> award......." which indicated that he was about to say his interpretation
> was not right which was highlighted by the tone of his voice and with a
> polite retreat. Only my thoughts though, but he'd let me know more on
> Monday.
>
> This is about "Notice" in regards to the award and our contract, where
only
> the contract overwrites the award, not the other way around as they have
> tried to do. That is, the award is your safety net and your contract is up
> and above that. You don't get one or the other. Therefore, if a condition
is
> not stated in your contract then you go back to the award for that
> condition. If any of you have the same situation, my suggestion is to
> email/call him (or Sallie) and let them know. I think most of our
contracts
> with OT had stipulated one months notice. So, if you are like me of only
> having being there for 18 months (under 2 years) and with being APESMA
> eligible being forced to go back to two weeks notice, then they maybe
trying
> to dud you on 2.33 weeks of notice. Or, it could be an honest
interpretation
> error....going there way.
>
> If you wanted more, please read back yesterdays email.
>
> Mark.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Gerlach [mailto:gerlach@...]
> Sent: Friday, 24 October 2003 3:36 PM
> To: otmushrooms@...
> Subject: RE: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
>
>
> What I can't understand is why some of us received 4 weeks and some of
> us 2. Surely our contracts were the same?
>
> Another DTT cock up??? Surely NOT!!!! Ahuh, of course...
>
> SG
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elizabeth Fullerton [mailto:laslig@...]
> > Sent: Friday, 24 October 2003 8:42 AM
> > To: otmushrooms @ yahoogroups . com . au
> > Subject: Re: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
> >
> > Mark, as far as I'm concerned, the award gives minimum amounts. My
> > contract
> > states one month's notice, that's what they owe me, that's what I'm
> > claiming.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Mark Shannon <mshannon@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > G'Day all,
> > >
> > > I just got a reply back from Sallie regarding the notice. Earlier I
> > > stated
> > > that I had only two weeks notice instead of one months denoted on my
> > > contract. By proving my APESMA legibility, I lose my one months
> > > notice back
> > > to two weeks, but get one months redundancy instead of two weeks.
> > > Therefore,
> > > I gain absolutely nothing. If you have the inclination, read my
> > > request to
> > > Sallie, her reply and finally my reply to her again (which I have
> > > just
> > > sent). Give her credit, she at least responds.
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark Shannon
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Sallie,
> > >
> > > Firstly, please excuse me for misspelling your name in previous
> > > emails.
> > >
> > > With your comments, respectively I disagree with your points in that
> > > firstly, the whole purpose of proving my eligibility was for the one
> > > month
> > > notice which was standard OT practice for redundant people, yet DTT
> > > denied
> > > it as being applicable to us. It did not at any stage wipe out my
> > > entitlements on notice. Nor did they state this would happen.
> > >
> > > Just to outline the situation, I (amongst many others) were given
> one
> > > months
> > > notice (which is on my employee agreement). On being made redundant
> I
> > > was
> > > only given two weeks redundancy in which this length of redundancy
> > > went
> > > against the trend of ALL previously made redundant people. Then, DTT
> > > stated
> > > that if you can prove eligibility to APESMA, we'll give you one
> > > months
> > > redundancy. It never said, you would lose out on other things.
> > > Surely, DTT
> > > are playing with semantics and outside of human decency? They are
> > > hiding
> > > behind every curtain. Even the Department of Employment and
> Workplace
> > > Relations admitted that it was common OT practice to give one
> month's
> > > notice. Now, you are saying you can have one or the other? I think
> > > that is
> > > unfair Sallie and with respect totally beyond belief. I do not
> accept
> > > this.
> > >
> > > In summary, I have the right to one months and proven at DTT's
> > > request one
> > > months redundancy. Please do not forget the fact that we, as
> > > ex-employees of
> > > OT, were:
> > >
> > > 1) Unemployed for a period of extended time (in my case 2
> > > months...bills,
> > > mortgages, new born baby etc)
> > >
> > > 2) Have waited 15 months now and 17 months by the time of the first
> > > payment
> > >
> > > 3) The company is now up and running again and not going to pay us
> > > out in
> > > full
> > >
> > > 4) and the big bonus, whatever is worked out to be the final figure,
> > > we only
> > > get 43% of what we entitled to less the percentage of the total pool
> > > of
> > > funds divided by the total owed.
> > >
> > > Respectively, again I disagree with DTT assessment as my employee
> > > agreement
> > > gives me one months notice and as it is not stated on my employee
> > > agreement,
> > > APESMA eligibility gives me one months redundancy (as per DTT
> > > request).
> > >
> > > Sallie, so what happens now please?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your time.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Mark Shannon
> > >
> > > Ph: 03 9396 1599
> > >
> > > Fax: 03 9396 1627
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > From: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney) [mailto:smuire@...]
> > >
> > > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 3:15 PM
> > >
> > > To: Mark Shannon
> > >
> > > Subject: RE: Entitlements
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > If you refer to our circular to employees dated 28 August 2003, we
> > > discussed
> > > the issue of notice & redundancy. We noted that your employment
> > > contract
> > > does provide for one months notice, however redundancy in addition
> to
> > > that
> > > one months notice was not payable. Because of this, we then gave
> > > employees
> > > the opportunity to prove their eligibility for APESMA (which you
> > > have), in
> > > which case we would then pay out the notice & redundancy in
> > > accordance
> > > with the Award. In your case the Award provides for 2 weeks
> notice
> > > & 4
> > > weeks redundancy. In the event that the dollar value of the Award
> > > entitlements was less than the one month's notice we would apply the
> > > one
> > > months notice.
> > >
> > > Hope this has clarified it for you, if not please let me know.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sallie Muir
> > >
> > > Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
> > >
> > > (02) 9322 5621
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > From: Mark Shannon [mailto:mshannon@...]
> > >
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 1:34 PM
> > >
> > > To: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney)
> > >
> > > Subject: RE: Entitlements
> > >
> > > Hi Sally,
> > >
> > > I received my entitlements letter last night. The only thing that
> > > seems to
> > > be incorrect is the "Period of Notice" amount/time. I am believe it
> > > is for
> > > one month not two weeks as indicated. All else is correct. Can you
> > > please
> > > confirm or advise.
> > >
> > > Thank you in advance.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Mark Shannon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> > > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> notify
> > > the system manager.
> > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
> by
> > > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> > > www.mimesweeper.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > > Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including
> non-members
> > > of this group) can read this message in the archives.
> > >
> > > Useful links:
> > > OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> > > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> > > Public file archives (Files for download)
> > > http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> *********************************************************************
> > > *
> > >
> *********************************************************************
> > > *
> >
> >
> > Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members
> of
> > this group) can read this message in the archives.
> >
> > Useful links:
> > OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> > Public file archives (Files for download)
> > http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003
> >
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003
>
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members of
> this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> Public file archives (Files for download)
> http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members of
this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> Public file archives (Files for download)
> http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
A bit of this email got accidentally omitted.
Here is Sallie's reply to what happens if people don't agree Deloitte's
assessment of the entitlements.
Basically it sounds like you get to argue it with them, then they determine
what is correct, although perhaps the appeal process allows appealing to a
court to make a determination.
I asked:
1. What happens if Deloitte and I cannot agree on the level of my
entitlement by 18th Nov? Does that mean that Deloitte will pay me
Deloitte's assessment of my entitlement, or that I will get nothing?
2. Will the first dividend only go ahead if no individuals dispute their
figures? If there are disputes, how will you calculate the total of all
entitlements so that you can work out the percentage (i.e. the approx 43%
figure)?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney)" <smuire@......>
To: "Tom Northey" <tn@...>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 4:05 PM
Subject: RE: Confirm phone call
Hi Tom,
I just faxed you a copy of your adjusted statement & put the original in
the mail so please let me know if you haven't received it.
The dividend will go ahead as planned. The process that we have to
follow when paying a dividend, as per the Corporation Act 2001, is
designed to have all disputes resolved by the time the dividend is paid.
All employees will submit a proof of debt form. If that proof of debt is
different to the books and records of the company, then creditors are
required to provide substantiation to support the claim. We then
adjudicate on all proofs and will either admit or reject all or part of
the claim. If we reject all or part of the claim, creditors have the
right to appeal against it.
Ordinarily, most discrepancies are as a result of errors or
misunderstandings etc and are able to be easily resolved by the
substantiation (as provided by the creditor) or by going back to the
company records.
Hope this clarifies things for you.... but if not please let me know.
Regards,
Sallie Muir
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
The award specifies notice periods that vary according to years of service.
See my email of yesterday.
DTT have now accepted me as eligible for the award, and my notice has gone
from contracted 1 month to 4 weeks under the award. Only 0.33 wks but I am
still going to argue it - they've already got enough of my money.
I have also asked Sallie the following (no response yet):
1. What happens if Deloitte and I cannot agree on the level of my
entitlement
by 18th Nov? Does that mean that Deloitte will pay me Deloitte's assessment
of my entitlement, or that I will get nothing?
2. Will the first dividend only go ahead if no individuals dispute their
figures? If there are disputes, how will you calculate the total of all
entitlements so that you can work out the percentage (i.e. the approx 43%
figure)?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Gerlach" <gerlach@...>
To: <otmushrooms@...>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
> What I can't understand is why some of us received 4 weeks and some of
> us 2. Surely our contracts were the same?
>
> Another DTT cock up??? Surely NOT!!!! Ahuh, of course...
>
> SG
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elizabeth Fullerton [mailto:laslig@...]
> > Sent: Friday, 24 October 2003 8:42 AM
> > To: otmushrooms @ yahoogroups . com . au
> > Subject: Re: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
> >
> > Mark, as far as I'm concerned, the award gives minimum amounts. My
> > contract
> > states one month's notice, that's what they owe me, that's what I'm
> > claiming.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Mark Shannon <mshannon@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > G'Day all,
> > >
> > > I just got a reply back from Sallie regarding the notice. Earlier I
> > > stated
> > > that I had only two weeks notice instead of one months denoted on my
> > > contract. By proving my APESMA legibility, I lose my one months
> > > notice back
> > > to two weeks, but get one months redundancy instead of two weeks.
> > > Therefore,
> > > I gain absolutely nothing. If you have the inclination, read my
> > > request to
> > > Sallie, her reply and finally my reply to her again (which I have
> > > just
> > > sent). Give her credit, she at least responds.
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark Shannon
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Sallie,
> > >
> > > Firstly, please excuse me for misspelling your name in previous
> > > emails.
> > >
> > > With your comments, respectively I disagree with your points in that
> > > firstly, the whole purpose of proving my eligibility was for the one
> > > month
> > > notice which was standard OT practice for redundant people, yet DTT
> > > denied
> > > it as being applicable to us. It did not at any stage wipe out my
> > > entitlements on notice. Nor did they state this would happen.
> > >
> > > Just to outline the situation, I (amongst many others) were given
> one
> > > months
> > > notice (which is on my employee agreement). On being made redundant
> I
> > > was
> > > only given two weeks redundancy in which this length of redundancy
> > > went
> > > against the trend of ALL previously made redundant people. Then, DTT
> > > stated
> > > that if you can prove eligibility to APESMA, we'll give you one
> > > months
> > > redundancy. It never said, you would lose out on other things.
> > > Surely, DTT
> > > are playing with semantics and outside of human decency? They are
> > > hiding
> > > behind every curtain. Even the Department of Employment and
> Workplace
> > > Relations admitted that it was common OT practice to give one
> month's
> > > notice. Now, you are saying you can have one or the other? I think
> > > that is
> > > unfair Sallie and with respect totally beyond belief. I do not
> accept
> > > this.
> > >
> > > In summary, I have the right to one months and proven at DTT's
> > > request one
> > > months redundancy. Please do not forget the fact that we, as
> > > ex-employees of
> > > OT, were:
> > >
> > > 1) Unemployed for a period of extended time (in my case 2
> > > months...bills,
> > > mortgages, new born baby etc)
> > >
> > > 2) Have waited 15 months now and 17 months by the time of the first
> > > payment
> > >
> > > 3) The company is now up and running again and not going to pay us
> > > out in
> > > full
> > >
> > > 4) and the big bonus, whatever is worked out to be the final figure,
> > > we only
> > > get 43% of what we entitled to less the percentage of the total pool
> > > of
> > > funds divided by the total owed.
> > >
> > > Respectively, again I disagree with DTT assessment as my employee
> > > agreement
> > > gives me one months notice and as it is not stated on my employee
> > > agreement,
> > > APESMA eligibility gives me one months redundancy (as per DTT
> > > request).
> > >
> > > Sallie, so what happens now please?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your time.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Mark Shannon
> > >
> > > Ph: 03 9396 1599
> > >
> > > Fax: 03 9396 1627
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > From: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney) [mailto:smuire@...]
> > >
> > > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 3:15 PM
> > >
> > > To: Mark Shannon
> > >
> > > Subject: RE: Entitlements
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > If you refer to our circular to employees dated 28 August 2003, we
> > > discussed
> > > the issue of notice & redundancy. We noted that your employment
> > > contract
> > > does provide for one months notice, however redundancy in addition
> to
> > > that
> > > one months notice was not payable. Because of this, we then gave
> > > employees
> > > the opportunity to prove their eligibility for APESMA (which you
> > > have), in
> > > which case we would then pay out the notice & redundancy in
> > > accordance
> > > with the Award. In your case the Award provides for 2 weeks
> notice
> > > & 4
> > > weeks redundancy. In the event that the dollar value of the Award
> > > entitlements was less than the one month's notice we would apply the
> > > one
> > > months notice.
> > >
> > > Hope this has clarified it for you, if not please let me know.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sallie Muir
> > >
> > > Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
> > >
> > > (02) 9322 5621
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > From: Mark Shannon [mailto:mshannon@...]
> > >
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 1:34 PM
> > >
> > > To: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney)
> > >
> > > Subject: RE: Entitlements
> > >
> > > Hi Sally,
> > >
> > > I received my entitlements letter last night. The only thing that
> > > seems to
> > > be incorrect is the "Period of Notice" amount/time. I am believe it
> > > is for
> > > one month not two weeks as indicated. All else is correct. Can you
> > > please
> > > confirm or advise.
> > >
> > > Thank you in advance.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Mark Shannon
Along Steve's question/statement,
I just got a call from Morgan Kelly from DTT after chasing up yesterday's
enquiry by me on the same thing as Steve is talking about,"Notice". Morgan
said someone else also complained to him about the "Notice" going back from
one month to two weeks when applying the award. He called to let me know, as
a courtesy, that he's legal advice has not yet got back to him but will on
Monday. He then started to say something but stopped and said I'll wait
until then. In that start - stop sentence, he said ".....I thought with this
award......." which indicated that he was about to say his interpretation
was not right which was highlighted by the tone of his voice and with a
polite retreat. Only my thoughts though, but he'd let me know more on
Monday.
This is about "Notice" in regards to the award and our contract, where only
the contract overwrites the award, not the other way around as they have
tried to do. That is, the award is your safety net and your contract is up
and above that. You don't get one or the other. Therefore, if a condition is
not stated in your contract then you go back to the award for that
condition. If any of you have the same situation, my suggestion is to
email/call him (or Sallie) and let them know. I think most of our contracts
with OT had stipulated one months notice. So, if you are like me of only
having being there for 18 months (under 2 years) and with being APESMA
eligible being forced to go back to two weeks notice, then they maybe trying
to dud you on 2.33 weeks of notice. Or, it could be an honest interpretation
error....going there way.
If you wanted more, please read back yesterdays email.
Mark.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Gerlach [mailto:gerlach@...]
Sent: Friday, 24 October 2003 3:36 PM
To: otmushrooms@...
Subject: RE: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
What I can't understand is why some of us received 4 weeks and some of
us 2. Surely our contracts were the same?
Another DTT cock up??? Surely NOT!!!! Ahuh, of course...
SG
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elizabeth Fullerton [mailto:laslig@...]
> Sent: Friday, 24 October 2003 8:42 AM
> To: otmushrooms @ yahoogroups . com . au
> Subject: Re: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
>
> Mark, as far as I'm concerned, the award gives minimum amounts. My
> contract
> states one month's notice, that's what they owe me, that's what I'm
> claiming.
>
>
>
> > Mark Shannon <mshannon@...> wrote:
> >
> > G'Day all,
> >
> > I just got a reply back from Sallie regarding the notice. Earlier I
> > stated
> > that I had only two weeks notice instead of one months denoted on my
> > contract. By proving my APESMA legibility, I lose my one months
> > notice back
> > to two weeks, but get one months redundancy instead of two weeks.
> > Therefore,
> > I gain absolutely nothing. If you have the inclination, read my
> > request to
> > Sallie, her reply and finally my reply to her again (which I have
> > just
> > sent). Give her credit, she at least responds.
> >
> >
> > Mark Shannon
> >
> >
> > Hi Sallie,
> >
> > Firstly, please excuse me for misspelling your name in previous
> > emails.
> >
> > With your comments, respectively I disagree with your points in that
> > firstly, the whole purpose of proving my eligibility was for the one
> > month
> > notice which was standard OT practice for redundant people, yet DTT
> > denied
> > it as being applicable to us. It did not at any stage wipe out my
> > entitlements on notice. Nor did they state this would happen.
> >
> > Just to outline the situation, I (amongst many others) were given
one
> > months
> > notice (which is on my employee agreement). On being made redundant
I
> > was
> > only given two weeks redundancy in which this length of redundancy
> > went
> > against the trend of ALL previously made redundant people. Then, DTT
> > stated
> > that if you can prove eligibility to APESMA, we'll give you one
> > months
> > redundancy. It never said, you would lose out on other things.
> > Surely, DTT
> > are playing with semantics and outside of human decency? They are
> > hiding
> > behind every curtain. Even the Department of Employment and
Workplace
> > Relations admitted that it was common OT practice to give one
month's
> > notice. Now, you are saying you can have one or the other? I think
> > that is
> > unfair Sallie and with respect totally beyond belief. I do not
accept
> > this.
> >
> > In summary, I have the right to one months and proven at DTT's
> > request one
> > months redundancy. Please do not forget the fact that we, as
> > ex-employees of
> > OT, were:
> >
> > 1) Unemployed for a period of extended time (in my case 2
> > months...bills,
> > mortgages, new born baby etc)
> >
> > 2) Have waited 15 months now and 17 months by the time of the first
> > payment
> >
> > 3) The company is now up and running again and not going to pay us
> > out in
> > full
> >
> > 4) and the big bonus, whatever is worked out to be the final figure,
> > we only
> > get 43% of what we entitled to less the percentage of the total pool
> > of
> > funds divided by the total owed.
> >
> > Respectively, again I disagree with DTT assessment as my employee
> > agreement
> > gives me one months notice and as it is not stated on my employee
> > agreement,
> > APESMA eligibility gives me one months redundancy (as per DTT
> > request).
> >
> > Sallie, so what happens now please?
> >
> > Thanks for your time.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Mark Shannon
> >
> > Ph: 03 9396 1599
> >
> > Fax: 03 9396 1627
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney) [mailto:smuire@...]
> >
> > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 3:15 PM
> >
> > To: Mark Shannon
> >
> > Subject: RE: Entitlements
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > If you refer to our circular to employees dated 28 August 2003, we
> > discussed
> > the issue of notice & redundancy. We noted that your employment
> > contract
> > does provide for one months notice, however redundancy in addition
to
> > that
> > one months notice was not payable. Because of this, we then gave
> > employees
> > the opportunity to prove their eligibility for APESMA (which you
> > have), in
> > which case we would then pay out the notice & redundancy in
> > accordance
> > with the Award. In your case the Award provides for 2 weeks
notice
> > & 4
> > weeks redundancy. In the event that the dollar value of the Award
> > entitlements was less than the one month's notice we would apply the
> > one
> > months notice.
> >
> > Hope this has clarified it for you, if not please let me know.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Sallie Muir
> >
> > Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
> >
> > (02) 9322 5621
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Mark Shannon [mailto:mshannon@...]
> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 1:34 PM
> >
> > To: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney)
> >
> > Subject: RE: Entitlements
> >
> > Hi Sally,
> >
> > I received my entitlements letter last night. The only thing that
> > seems to
> > be incorrect is the "Period of Notice" amount/time. I am believe it
> > is for
> > one month not two weeks as indicated. All else is correct. Can you
> > please
> > confirm or advise.
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Mark Shannon
> >
> >
> >
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify
> > the system manager.
> > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
by
> > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> > www.mimesweeper.com
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including
non-members
> > of this group) can read this message in the archives.
> >
> > Useful links:
> > OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> > Public file archives (Files for download)
> > http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
*********************************************************************
> > *
> >
*********************************************************************
> > *
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members
of
> this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> Public file archives (Files for download)
> http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003
Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members of
this group) can read this message in the archives.
Useful links:
OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
Public file archives (Files for download)
http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
What I can't understand is why some of us received 4 weeks and some of
us 2. Surely our contracts were the same?
Another DTT cock up??? Surely NOT!!!! Ahuh, of course...
SG
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elizabeth Fullerton [mailto:laslig@...]
> Sent: Friday, 24 October 2003 8:42 AM
> To: otmushrooms @ yahoogroups . com . au
> Subject: Re: RE: [otmushrooms] Notice
>
> Mark, as far as I'm concerned, the award gives minimum amounts. My
> contract
> states one month's notice, that's what they owe me, that's what I'm
> claiming.
>
>
>
> > Mark Shannon <mshannon@...> wrote:
> >
> > G'Day all,
> >
> > I just got a reply back from Sallie regarding the notice. Earlier I
> > stated
> > that I had only two weeks notice instead of one months denoted on my
> > contract. By proving my APESMA legibility, I lose my one months
> > notice back
> > to two weeks, but get one months redundancy instead of two weeks.
> > Therefore,
> > I gain absolutely nothing. If you have the inclination, read my
> > request to
> > Sallie, her reply and finally my reply to her again (which I have
> > just
> > sent). Give her credit, she at least responds.
> >
> >
> > Mark Shannon
> >
> >
> > Hi Sallie,
> >
> > Firstly, please excuse me for misspelling your name in previous
> > emails.
> >
> > With your comments, respectively I disagree with your points in that
> > firstly, the whole purpose of proving my eligibility was for the one
> > month
> > notice which was standard OT practice for redundant people, yet DTT
> > denied
> > it as being applicable to us. It did not at any stage wipe out my
> > entitlements on notice. Nor did they state this would happen.
> >
> > Just to outline the situation, I (amongst many others) were given
one
> > months
> > notice (which is on my employee agreement). On being made redundant
I
> > was
> > only given two weeks redundancy in which this length of redundancy
> > went
> > against the trend of ALL previously made redundant people. Then, DTT
> > stated
> > that if you can prove eligibility to APESMA, we'll give you one
> > months
> > redundancy. It never said, you would lose out on other things.
> > Surely, DTT
> > are playing with semantics and outside of human decency? They are
> > hiding
> > behind every curtain. Even the Department of Employment and
Workplace
> > Relations admitted that it was common OT practice to give one
month's
> > notice. Now, you are saying you can have one or the other? I think
> > that is
> > unfair Sallie and with respect totally beyond belief. I do not
accept
> > this.
> >
> > In summary, I have the right to one months and proven at DTT's
> > request one
> > months redundancy. Please do not forget the fact that we, as
> > ex-employees of
> > OT, were:
> >
> > 1) Unemployed for a period of extended time (in my case 2
> > months...bills,
> > mortgages, new born baby etc)
> >
> > 2) Have waited 15 months now and 17 months by the time of the first
> > payment
> >
> > 3) The company is now up and running again and not going to pay us
> > out in
> > full
> >
> > 4) and the big bonus, whatever is worked out to be the final figure,
> > we only
> > get 43% of what we entitled to less the percentage of the total pool
> > of
> > funds divided by the total owed.
> >
> > Respectively, again I disagree with DTT assessment as my employee
> > agreement
> > gives me one months notice and as it is not stated on my employee
> > agreement,
> > APESMA eligibility gives me one months redundancy (as per DTT
> > request).
> >
> > Sallie, so what happens now please?
> >
> > Thanks for your time.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Mark Shannon
> >
> > Ph: 03 9396 1599
> >
> > Fax: 03 9396 1627
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney) [mailto:smuire@...]
> >
> > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 3:15 PM
> >
> > To: Mark Shannon
> >
> > Subject: RE: Entitlements
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > If you refer to our circular to employees dated 28 August 2003, we
> > discussed
> > the issue of notice & redundancy. We noted that your employment
> > contract
> > does provide for one months notice, however redundancy in addition
to
> > that
> > one months notice was not payable. Because of this, we then gave
> > employees
> > the opportunity to prove their eligibility for APESMA (which you
> > have), in
> > which case we would then pay out the notice & redundancy in
> > accordance
> > with the Award. In your case the Award provides for 2 weeks
notice
> > & 4
> > weeks redundancy. In the event that the dollar value of the Award
> > entitlements was less than the one month's notice we would apply the
> > one
> > months notice.
> >
> > Hope this has clarified it for you, if not please let me know.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Sallie Muir
> >
> > Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
> >
> > (02) 9322 5621
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Mark Shannon [mailto:mshannon@...]
> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 1:34 PM
> >
> > To: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney)
> >
> > Subject: RE: Entitlements
> >
> > Hi Sally,
> >
> > I received my entitlements letter last night. The only thing that
> > seems to
> > be incorrect is the "Period of Notice" amount/time. I am believe it
> > is for
> > one month not two weeks as indicated. All else is correct. Can you
> > please
> > confirm or advise.
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Mark Shannon
> >
> >
> >
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify
> > the system manager.
> > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
by
> > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> > www.mimesweeper.com
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including
non-members
> > of this group) can read this message in the archives.
> >
> > Useful links:
> > OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> > Public file archives (Files for download)
> > http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
*********************************************************************
> > *
> >
*********************************************************************
> > *
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members
of
> this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> Public file archives (Files for download)
> http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003
Mark, as far as I'm concerned, the award gives minimum amounts. My contract
states one month's notice, that's what they owe me, that's what I'm claiming.
> Mark Shannon <mshannon@...> wrote:
>
> G'Day all,
>
> I just got a reply back from Sallie regarding the notice. Earlier I
> stated
> that I had only two weeks notice instead of one months denoted on my
> contract. By proving my APESMA legibility, I lose my one months
> notice back
> to two weeks, but get one months redundancy instead of two weeks.
> Therefore,
> I gain absolutely nothing. If you have the inclination, read my
> request to
> Sallie, her reply and finally my reply to her again (which I have
> just
> sent). Give her credit, she at least responds.
>
>
> Mark Shannon
>
>
> Hi Sallie,
>
> Firstly, please excuse me for misspelling your name in previous
> emails.
>
> With your comments, respectively I disagree with your points in that
> firstly, the whole purpose of proving my eligibility was for the one
> month
> notice which was standard OT practice for redundant people, yet DTT
> denied
> it as being applicable to us. It did not at any stage wipe out my
> entitlements on notice. Nor did they state this would happen.
>
> Just to outline the situation, I (amongst many others) were given one
> months
> notice (which is on my employee agreement). On being made redundant I
> was
> only given two weeks redundancy in which this length of redundancy
> went
> against the trend of ALL previously made redundant people. Then, DTT
> stated
> that if you can prove eligibility to APESMA, we'll give you one
> months
> redundancy. It never said, you would lose out on other things.
> Surely, DTT
> are playing with semantics and outside of human decency? They are
> hiding
> behind every curtain. Even the Department of Employment and Workplace
> Relations admitted that it was common OT practice to give one month's
> notice. Now, you are saying you can have one or the other? I think
> that is
> unfair Sallie and with respect totally beyond belief. I do not accept
> this.
>
> In summary, I have the right to one months and proven at DTT's
> request one
> months redundancy. Please do not forget the fact that we, as
> ex-employees of
> OT, were:
>
> 1) Unemployed for a period of extended time (in my case 2
> months...bills,
> mortgages, new born baby etc)
>
> 2) Have waited 15 months now and 17 months by the time of the first
> payment
>
> 3) The company is now up and running again and not going to pay us
> out in
> full
>
> 4) and the big bonus, whatever is worked out to be the final figure,
> we only
> get 43% of what we entitled to less the percentage of the total pool
> of
> funds divided by the total owed.
>
> Respectively, again I disagree with DTT assessment as my employee
> agreement
> gives me one months notice and as it is not stated on my employee
> agreement,
> APESMA eligibility gives me one months redundancy (as per DTT
> request).
>
> Sallie, so what happens now please?
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mark Shannon
>
> Ph: 03 9396 1599
>
> Fax: 03 9396 1627
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney) [mailto:smuire@...]
>
> Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 3:15 PM
>
> To: Mark Shannon
>
> Subject: RE: Entitlements
>
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> If you refer to our circular to employees dated 28 August 2003, we
> discussed
> the issue of notice & redundancy. We noted that your employment
> contract
> does provide for one months notice, however redundancy in addition to
> that
> one months notice was not payable. Because of this, we then gave
> employees
> the opportunity to prove their eligibility for APESMA (which you
> have), in
> which case we would then pay out the notice & redundancy in
> accordance
> with the Award. In your case the Award provides for 2 weeks notice
> & 4
> weeks redundancy. In the event that the dollar value of the Award
> entitlements was less than the one month's notice we would apply the
> one
> months notice.
>
> Hope this has clarified it for you, if not please let me know.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Sallie Muir
>
> Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
>
> (02) 9322 5621
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Mark Shannon [mailto:mshannon@...]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 1:34 PM
>
> To: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney)
>
> Subject: RE: Entitlements
>
> Hi Sally,
>
> I received my entitlements letter last night. The only thing that
> seems to
> be incorrect is the "Period of Notice" amount/time. I am believe it
> is for
> one month not two weeks as indicated. All else is correct. Can you
> please
> confirm or advise.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mark Shannon
>
>
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the system manager.
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> www.mimesweeper.com
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members
> of this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> Public file archives (Files for download)
> http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> *********************************************************************
> *
> *********************************************************************
> *
G'Day all,
I just got a reply back from Sallie regarding the notice. Earlier I stated
that I had only two weeks notice instead of one months denoted on my
contract. By proving my APESMA legibility, I lose my one months notice back
to two weeks, but get one months redundancy instead of two weeks. Therefore,
I gain absolutely nothing. If you have the inclination, read my request to
Sallie, her reply and finally my reply to her again (which I have just
sent). Give her credit, she at least responds.
Mark Shannon
Hi Sallie,
Firstly, please excuse me for misspelling your name in previous emails.
With your comments, respectively I disagree with your points in that
firstly, the whole purpose of proving my eligibility was for the one month
notice which was standard OT practice for redundant people, yet DTT denied
it as being applicable to us. It did not at any stage wipe out my
entitlements on notice. Nor did they state this would happen.
Just to outline the situation, I (amongst many others) were given one months
notice (which is on my employee agreement). On being made redundant I was
only given two weeks redundancy in which this length of redundancy went
against the trend of ALL previously made redundant people. Then, DTT stated
that if you can prove eligibility to APESMA, we'll give you one months
redundancy. It never said, you would lose out on other things. Surely, DTT
are playing with semantics and outside of human decency? They are hiding
behind every curtain. Even the Department of Employment and Workplace
Relations admitted that it was common OT practice to give one month's
notice. Now, you are saying you can have one or the other? I think that is
unfair Sallie and with respect totally beyond belief. I do not accept this.
In summary, I have the right to one months and proven at DTT's request one
months redundancy. Please do not forget the fact that we, as ex-employees of
OT, were:
1) Unemployed for a period of extended time (in my case 2 months...bills,
mortgages, new born baby etc)
2) Have waited 15 months now and 17 months by the time of the first payment
3) The company is now up and running again and not going to pay us out in
full
4) and the big bonus, whatever is worked out to be the final figure, we only
get 43% of what we entitled to less the percentage of the total pool of
funds divided by the total owed.
Respectively, again I disagree with DTT assessment as my employee agreement
gives me one months notice and as it is not stated on my employee agreement,
APESMA eligibility gives me one months redundancy (as per DTT request).
Sallie, so what happens now please?
Thanks for your time.
Kind regards,
Mark Shannon
Ph: 03 9396 1599
Fax: 03 9396 1627
-----Original Message-----
From: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney) [mailto:smuire@...]
Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 3:15 PM
To: Mark Shannon
Subject: RE: Entitlements
Hi Mark,
If you refer to our circular to employees dated 28 August 2003, we discussed
the issue of notice & redundancy. We noted that your employment contract
does provide for one months notice, however redundancy in addition to that
one months notice was not payable. Because of this, we then gave employees
the opportunity to prove their eligibility for APESMA (which you have), in
which case we would then pay out the notice & redundancy in accordance
with the Award. In your case the Award provides for 2 weeks notice & 4
weeks redundancy. In the event that the dollar value of the Award
entitlements was less than the one month's notice we would apply the one
months notice.
Hope this has clarified it for you, if not please let me know.
Regards,
Sallie Muir
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
(02) 9322 5621
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Shannon [mailto:mshannon@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 1:34 PM
To: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney)
Subject: RE: Entitlements
Hi Sally,
I received my entitlements letter last night. The only thing that seems to
be incorrect is the "Period of Notice" amount/time. I am believe it is for
one month not two weeks as indicated. All else is correct. Can you please
confirm or advise.
Thank you in advance.
Kind regards,
Mark Shannon
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It was in my contract at 1 month. If it is in your contract, the higher of
your contract and the award applies.
Apparently it was not in some people's contracts - then the award applies.
Award is as follows:
Period of continuous service Period of notice
1 year or less 1 week
Over 1 year and up to the completion of 3 years 2 weeks
Over 3 years and up to the completion of 5 years 3 weeks
Over 5 years of completed service 4 weeks
15.1.2 In addition to this notice, employees over 45 years of age at the
time of the giving of the notice with not less than two years continuous
service, are entitled to an additional week's notice.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jasbir Kahlon" <jaskahlon@...>
To: <otmushrooms@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 4:08 PM
Subject: [otmushrooms] Notice
> Hi All,
> Does anyone know whether "notice" should be calculated as per the Award
> calculations or as it was stated in our employment contract?
>
> Regards
> Jas
Hi All,
Does anyone know whether "notice" should be calculated as per the Award
calculations or as it was stated in our employment contract?
Regards
Jas
_________________________________________________________________
ninemsn Premium transforms your e-mail with colours, photos and animated
text. Click here http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
There was no activity between 2-9 Oct 2003
There are 3 threads of conversation in this summary
Threads continued from previous summaries, out of a possible 12
2. Updates from Deloitte
10. Mudgee Abattoir - redundancies/GEERS
There is one new thread.
13. OTT ASX announcement: Equity Capital Raising
Thread: 2
Subject: Updates from Deloitte
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:28:08 +1000
From: "Saltikov" <minaalex@i...>
Subject: Re: Deloitte distribution update 26 Sep 03
Hi Everyone,
Did someone get the mentioned below letter from Deloitte? They told Tom
it
will come in about 7 days from 26 September ... or there is another
delay?
I will very much appreciate any updates.
Regards,
Mina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>
To: "openvictims" <openvictims@y...>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 5:01 PM
Subject: [openvictims] Deloitte distribution update 26 Sep 03
> Just spoke to Morgan Kelly of Deloitte.
>
[...]
> They expect to send out a circular to employee creditors mid to late
next
> week containing recalculated entitlements. If you disagree with
these
> values, you can dispute it with them then.
==========
A response indicating that no letter was received were also received
from Steve Gerlach, and I (Nick Bishop) haven't had one either.
==========
The following email had a minor correction: Sally -> Sallie. Nick.
Date: 14 Oct 2003 09:27:34 +1000
From: "Geoff Hudson" <geoff.hudson@m...>
Subject: RE: Deloitte distribution update 26 Sep 03
Re APESMA eligibility.
The initial request was contained in their memo of 28th August. If in
doubt, send again by fax to:
Sallie Muir on (02) 9322 7261
If you wish to confirm receipt...
Her number is (02) 9322 5621
Email deloitte.com.au @ smuire
She's very helpful - be nice.
Geoff
==========
Steve Gerlach indicates he got a quick reply to his email. Reply is
below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney) [mailto:deloitte.com.au @ smuire]
Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2003 11:58 AM
To: GERLACH, Steven
Subject: RE: Deloitte OT distribution update 26 Sep 03
Steve,
Early next week, you will receive a letter outlining your summary of
entitlements as per the books and records of the Open Tel. We are doing
this
to give employees an opportunity to agree / disagree with the values.
Until
we have reached agreement with all employees on the value of individual
entitlements, we are unable to calculate the value of the dividend that
you
will receive. However I can tell you that the first dividend will be
declared for early December, meaning that you will receive payment
shortly
thereafter that date. Under the Corporations Act 2001, we have to
comply
with a fairly strict timeline when for declaring a dividend I.e. we
have to
advertise, allow certain time for creditors to submit proof of debt
forms
and then allow a further time period for creditors to dispute our
decision
on their claims before any monies can be paid.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries.
Regards,
[Snip problematic formatting.]
[Sallie Muir, Senior Analyst, Corporate Reorganisation Group]
==========
Another email from Sallie Muir.
-----Original Message-----
From: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney) [mailto:deloitte.com.au @ smuire]
Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2003 12:36 PM
To: GERLACH, Steven
Subject: RE: Deloitte OT distribution update 26 Sep 03
Steve,
Yes, the [1st] payment should be made before Christmas. When you
receive
your statement of entitlement, it will include the full value of
entitlements outstanding to you. We will ask everyone to sign the
statement
if they agree to the amount. This will then allow us to calculate the
exact
dividend payment, given that many peoples' entitlements have been
adjusted
or recalculated.
Regards,
Sallie Muir
-----Original Message-----
From: GERLACH, Steven [mailto:steven.gerlach@s...]
Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2003 12:09 PM
To: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney)
Subject: RE: Deloitte OT distribution update 26 Sep 03
Thanks, Sallie. So the first payment will be made before Christmas?
Also, the summary of entitlements will list the full amount? Or the "48
cents in the dollar" to-be-paid amount?
==========
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:45:58 +1000
From: Tom Northey <tn@d...>
Subject: Re: FW: Deloitte OT distribution update 26 Sep 03
[...]
Re Sallie Muir, she worked on the OT case from the start. She and
Andrew
Needham (plus Peter Yates) are the only ones left of the original
people who
worked on OT case. Andrew Needham is on secondment at NAB so it is not
much
use talking to him even if you can get on to him. I think Sallie does
the
calculations and normally someone else does the talking.
rgds
Tom
==========
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:46:30 +1000
From: Tom Northey <tn@d...>
Subject: Re: Re: FW: Deloitte OT distribution update 26 Sep 03
start_monday wrote:
> I think that declaring a dividend from the fund may be different to
> declaring individual payments.
>
> I also have a feeling that *not* the whole of the $790K is coming our
> way
Section 9.4 of the deed says they can pay the entitlements of creditors
in
installments, so they could potentially keep enough back to pay for any
disputes and give us the rest. e.g. pay out 80% of what OT paid them so
far.
Or they might just wait until it is all agreed.
>, the last creditors meeting gave DDT the right to make further
> deductions in the future for their own costs (I remember $150K there
> somewhere) . Someone might like to querie DDT on that, and
> subsequently we can all get a bit more pissed off.
The deed says the company remunerates Deloittes and meets their costs
(section 11.1) and "Only the Employees will be entitled to amounts
standing
to the credit of the Employee Fund" (section 9.1).
==========
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:52:36 -0000
From: "start_monday" <start_monday@y...>
Subject: Re: FW: Deloitte OT distribution update 26 Sep 03
Thanks Tom. I remember reading something at the Crikey site about the
Ansett administrators creaming $10M off the Ansett fund - the one
that the extra ticket tax was created for - it made me think that we
might be up for something similar.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thread: 10
Subject: Mudgee Abattoir - redundancies/GEERS
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:36:42 +1000
From: Tom Northey <tn@d...>
Subject: Update on Mudgee Abattoir
It appears that the NSW govt has had legal advice that it cannot
provide
priority of employee entitlements over other creditors for the Mudgee
Abattoir. As you may recall, those workers are not covered by
Corporations
Law which normally provides this priority.
While it is unfortunate for these workers that GEERS payouts look less
likely, it should help focus attention on the weaknesses in the
entitlements
"guarantee" system.
***Ex-abattoir workers to rally over entitlements
http://www.abc.net.au/centralwest/news/200310/s967312.htm
Wednesday, 15 October 2003
Former Mudgee Abattoir workers will establish a picket-line at the
Mudgee
council chambers next week, protesting about unpaid workers'
entitlements.
More than 100 of the 250 workers who lost their jobs last month
attended a
rally yesterday, prompted by the State Government's recent claim that
it is
not responsible for paying the entitlements.
The United Services Union's Graham Kelly says the Government's decision
is
the result of Crown solicitor's advice that the state cannot change the
abattoir's constitution retrospectively.
"By not allowing that retrospective change to the constitution we can't
now
move the employees up as first-secured creditor, which would enable the
GEERS [General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme] funding to
come
forward," he said.
"So we are back to where we were on the very first day that the
abattoir
closed, and that was nobody is putting their hand up and owning up for
the
reponsibility for the outstanding payments of $5 million of unpaid
entitlements that workers are entitled to."
***Deputy PM defends Govt's assistance scheme
http://www.abc.net.au/centralwest/news/200310/s967996.htm
Thursday, 16 October 2003
Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson says the Commonwealth is ready and
willing to pay former workers of the Mudgee abattoir, but only when the
New
South Wales Government can insure the employees will be first
creditors.
More than 250 staff at the western New South Wales abattoir were put
out of
work last month after the it went into administration.
The United Services Union has now passed a motion of no confidence in
Mr
Anderson and in the NSW Minister for Local Government, Tony Kelly,
saying
there is a deadlock between the pair over workers' entitlements.
Mr Anderson says he is outraged by union claims and has defended the
Government's GEERS assistance scheme, which was also used during the
Ansett
collapse.
"The Ansett workers were covered by corporations law, which said the
workers
got priority and other creditors couldn't take it away from them," Mr
Anderson said.
"Other creditors didn't get it. The only reason it can't work with the
Mudgee workers is NSW won't make certain that the workers have priority
so
the money can't be taken away from them.
"There is no law in NSW covering those workers to say they have
priority
over other creditors. Until there is such a law, the money will almost
certainly be claimed by other creditors through the courts.
"And here is the rub, only the New South Wales Government can solve the
problem."
***Lease plans in doubt
By Don Mahoney
Tuesday, 14 October 2003
Mudgee Guardian
Plans to lease the Mudgee Regional Abattoir and get it back in
operation
before it is sold have fallen through...
[The administrator] said the door was still open for an interim lease
arrangement ... With just under three weeks to go before purchase
tenders
close, however, it appeared unlikely a lease would be arranged.
[The administrator] said 22 parties had showed interest in purchasing
the
abattoir and the tender process is under way...
http://tinyurl.com/r3qq
***NSW Legislative Council Hansard
16 September 2003
http://tinyurl.com/r3sd
MUDGEE ABATTOIR CLOSURE
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: ...Will the Minister [for for Agriculture and
Fisheries] update the House on ...the closure of the Mudgee abattoir?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: ...In the past eight years, the State
Government has
provided nearly $670,000 of assistance to the abattoir ... The Mudgee
abattoir owes its staff approximately $4.9 million in entitlements: It
does
not have the money. Protecting workers' entitlements is, of course, the
responsibility of the Federal Government. The New South Wales Minister
for
Industrial Relations has written to the Federal Minister, Tony Abbott,
urging him to provide assistance to the workers through the Howard
Government's General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: What are you going to do?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: We have already put in $670,000. These workers
are
clearly eligible for help under Mr Abbott's scheme. I am advised that
to
date he has refused them help...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thread: 13
Subject: OTT ASX announcement: Equity Capital Raising
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:30:51 +1000
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>
Subject: OTT Announcement: Equity Capital Raising 9 Oct 03
Announcement to Australian Stock Exchange
9 October 2003
Open Telecommunications Ltd (OTT)
Equity Capital Raising
Open Telecommunications Ltd has taken a major step towards re-quotation
on
ASX with the appointment of Paterson Ord Minnett to act as Lead Manager
of a
two stage equity capital raising for the Company. The capital raising
will
involve an initial placement to be followed shortly thereafter by a
prospectus based issue.
The equity capital raised will enable the Company to emerge free of
debt and
with positive working capital at a time when the Company's operating
cash
flows are becoming positive and its core markets are picking up.
The equity capital raised is to be applied as follows:
. Full discharge of secured debt;
. Early payment of the balance of Deed Of Company Arrangement (DOCA)
creditors;
. Payment of other deferred liabilities;
. Costs of the issue; and Working Capital.
The two-stage process will involve a placement to be undertaken
immediately,
followed by a prospectus-based issue to all shareholders shortly
thereafter.
The combined issues will raise an aggregate of up to $10 million.
The share placement will be subject to:
. Shareholder approval; and
. Lodgement of a prospectus for the purpose of raising the balance of
funds
sought by the Company. The Company is well advanced in the preparation
of
the prospectus.
Once all secured debt and DOCA creditors have been paid out, the
Directors
believe that the new equity capital issue will allow a material shift
in
management focus to that of business procurement in an environment
where
telecommunications industry investment in the Company's key markets is
recovering.
Critically, the significant re-alignment of costs to revenues that have
taken place during and after the Voluntary Administration coupled with
an
improved balance sheet should enhance customer confidence and create an
operating environment leveraged to sales growth.
Upon completion of the prospectus issue, which is anticipated in late
December 2003, the Directors will seek to have the Company's securities
re-quoted on ASX.
The Directors will keep shareholders informed of events as they unfold
and
look forward to their support of the issues in this important step
forward
for the Company.
For further information please contact:
Wayne Passlow - CEO
Open Telecommunications Limited
(02) 8925-3000
Andrew McMillan - Director Corporate Finance
Paterson Ord Minnett Ltd
(08) 9263 1211
*************************
[Tom's thoughts on this...]
I suspect this will mean early repayments for unsecured creditors, and
not
employee creditors. Late Dec 03 is the schedule for this raising and
it
will probably run later than schedule.
The capital raising will dilute any existing shareholders enormously
(including dissatisfied former employees, so we will be less
troublesome).
==========
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 06:45:42 -0000
From: "start_monday" <start_monday@y...>
Subject: Re: OTT Announcement: Equity Capital Raising 9 Oct 03
Are Ord Minnett underwriting ? I can't see it being fully
subscribed.
- Rod
My mobile number is 0438 366 342, working now.
Notes:
1. For about the cost of a weekly ticket, I have acquired a phone and
a suitable connection (Yes!)
2. For Wed 22 Oct 2003 only: if you have difficulties calling the
number, try again in 4 hours. This is because it will be ported
(Mobile Number Portability) on that date.
3. After that date, it will become a Virgin mobile number (so other
Virgins can make use of Virgin buddies and 5c text virgin2virgin etc).
Nick Bishop.
-----
Kill Bill - sounds like a good movie for a Windows Hater
-oOo-
Offline 
Send Email
