Australian Security Workers Forum
Victoria >> VIC Security Contractors A to M >> Monjon (Australia) Pty Ltd

Message started by Administrator on 05. Feb 2014 at 09:44

Title: Monjon (Australia) Pty Ltd
Post by Administrator on 05. Feb 2014 at 09:44
Below is a response I made to a member who wanted my comment on this agreement. If anyone contemplates working for a company which has an agreement from the Workchoices era think again. If anyone is working under these agreements then apply to terminate it. See:


This agreement and I use the term 'agreement' lightly, because was rarely a negotiated agreement between management and workers, was made in 2007 under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 under the Liberals Workchoices legislation. This was a time when agreements were made usually without proper worker participation or union involvement. Any worker who read this agreement would reject it because it was very detrimental to the conditions of the current award at the time. They were usually approved  by the workplace authority without being fully scrutinized and there was no such thing as a 'Better Off Overall' criteria to judge the fairness of the agreement.

The problem with these agreements is that under Labor's Fair Work Act, these agreements did not terminate but were allowed to run until they expired and could be in force after that expiration date until either the employer or employee filed a notice to terminate the agreement. This has not happened because the agreement is still in force.

This agreement is horrific because it

    Demands the employee contribute $500 out of their pay to a uniform bond.
    Has no clause for a yearly increase to the flat pay rate so the rates remain constant for the period of the agreement.
    Has a flat hourly rate of pay which is substantially  below what is the norm for that period.

Flat rates of pay are usually formulated over what an employee would earn over a shift cycle taking in any overtime worked, shift penalties and weekend penalties along with what public holidays would be worked over the year. This amount is then divided by the hours in the shift cycle to arrive at the hourly rate. It works for those who are on a continual shift roster but not for those who are casual or part time who are usually worked over the weekends and therefore lose out considerably.

The formula by which these companies come to the flat rate of pay is not required in the agreement so no one can verify if it is a fair rate. The figure around $25 per hour for level 1 is the bare minimum.

The trouble is that a lot of employees got trapped when working for a company with a workchoices agreement in that they were not sufficiently aware they were working for sub standard pay and conditions and refused employment. The companies who had these agreements in place had a decided cost advantage over their competition. 

Title: Re: Monjon (Australia) Pty Ltd
Post by Administrator on 05. Nov 2014 at 10:00
The Monjon agreement expired at the end of 2012. Expired agreements continue to operate until a request is lodged either from the employer or an employee to the Fair Work Commission to have it terminated. If the FWC considers it to be in the public interest, it will have the agreement terminated and have the parties negotiate a fresh agreement.

Form 24B is to be submitted and can be downloaded here:

See FWC Rule:

Fair Work Act:

So you see it needs only one employee to request a termination. Most employees are unaware or frightened to do this it the conditions of the agreement are fall short of the current award. So if you want to stir up the 'hornet's nest', become employed by Monjon, submit a request to terminate the agreement then resign.

Any new enterprise agreement that is agreed upon must pass the 'no disadvantage test' applied by the FWC which compares the agreement conditions to that of the current award. The current agreement must show what conditions of the agreement were negotiated upon and neither party should be disadvantaged according to the award.

Even if the payscale is below the award then Monjon have to pay at the current award rates. What is not so clear is if the current agreement has negated penalty rates, then is Monjon required to pay penalty rates.

There are a number of these old agreements that came into effect before 2009 before the Fair Work Act came into force. They were allowed to remain in force after 2009 because of contractual agreements these companies had with their clients. This is because terminating these agreements would have caused these companies to fail because of contractual price structures which would have put them at a disadvantage. Now the opposite is true, they now have a price advantage. I do not know if legislation to force these old agreements to expire would have passed parliament or would have been against the law.

What was not legislated was for these agreements to automatically terminate after their expiry date and cause a fresh agreement negotiation to take place.

This state of affairs is affecting security companies which are compliant with the Security Services Industry Award 2010. I was talking to one such employer who has lost contracts to a security firm still operating under a pre 2009 agreement. Unless ASIAL can intervene or United Voice then the situation will remain as it is. As you can see with the Monjon agreement which did not include an employee organization (union) then then they have no avenue open to them to terminate this agreement. >:(

Title: Re: Monjon (Australia) Pty Ltd
Post by Administrator on 15. Nov 2014 at 15:44
Doing some research, I found the following:

John Moncrieff is the proprietor of Monjon (Australia) and is an ex Victoria Police officer and from the following reports is potentially corrupt and has connections in many areas including the underworld. It appears the Victoria Police Commissioner has concerns about him. He is the stated founder of the Brotherhood Club.

(Use browser search to find his name)

He has a large profile in Melbourne and you can see why by searching his name in google. He tries to maintain a respectable image.

Brian Goudsblom is the Chief Operations Officer. The following website shows how two faced this man is. (see bottom of page)

The security licencing department must be corrupted too to let him maintain his licence.

Title: Re: Monjon (Australia) Pty Ltd
Post by Administrator on 16. Nov 2014 at 12:24
Working for this company do not expect to be paid the minimum of 4 hours per shift:

Clause 7.1 of the Monjon Areement states‘The minimum ordinary hours in one shift will be two’

This clause is in total contradiction of the Security Services Industry Award 2010:

21.2 Shift duration
(a) Ordinary time shifts must be limited in duration to:
(i) for casual employees—a minimum of four and a maximum of 10 ordinary hours;
(ii) for full-time employees—a minimum of 7.6 and a maximum of 10 ordinary hours; and
(iii) for part-time employees—a minimum of one fifth of the employee’s agreed weekly hours or four hours (whichever is the greater) and a maximum of 10 ordinary hours.

Expect to work overtime and not get paid any overtime penalty rates:

Clause 7.2 of the Monjon Agreement states:

‘Additional Hours. Any work outside the ordinary hours of work as defined above is additional hours. Where an employee volunteers to work additional hours (Voluntary Additional Hours) the employee will be paid at the normal hourly rate of pay. ‘

You will be required at the start of employment to sign a Voluntary Additional Hours form stating you will work up to 50hrs in a shift rotation at normal hourly rate of pay. Refusing to sign will ensure you do not get employed.

Do not expect to be paid for meal breaks when you remain at your post:

Clause 8 of the Monjon agreement states: ‘Meal Intervals/Rest Breaks  - Employees are entitled to an unpaid meal break of 30 minutes after 5 hours of work which is to be taken at a time convenient to the business and the service of customers’

This clause does not define unpaid meal break sufficiently in regard to the Security Services Industry Award 2010:

‘Part 5—Hours of Work and Related Matters
(a)      Meal breaks
Except where it is operationally impracticable, an employee will be granted an unpaid meal break of not less than 30 minutes where a shift exceeds five hours duration. For the purpose of this subclause it will be operationally impractical to grant an unpaid meal break if the employee is permitted to leave the client’s premises or be unavailable for work during the period of the meal break.’

Expect to have $50.00 deducted each pay period until the sum reaches $500 which will be your uniform bond:

Clause 16.4 of the Monjon Agreement states:
‘Employees shall be required to provide to the Employer a uniform bond of $500.00 to cover the cost of loss or damage to the uniform other than fair wear and tear. The uniform bond shall be paid by every employee by the deduction from the remuneration payable of $50.00 per week until a total of $500.00 has been deducted.’

This clause goes against the condition of Security Service Industry Award Clause 15.11:
‘Other matters (b)
Where an employee is required to wear a uniform the employer must provide the employee with the uniform or reimburse the employee for the cost of the uniform.

Title: Re: Monjon (Australia) Pty Ltd
Post by Administrator on 16. Nov 2014 at 14:30
When you commence working for Monjon do not expect to be paid for the first 2 hours:

Clause 19 Probationary Period of the Monjon agreement. The second clause states ‘Employees shall commence their engagement with a four hour induction program of which two (2) hours will be paid and two hours will be unpaid’.

Section 21. (b) of the Security Services Industry Award states: ‘The following time is ordinary working time for the purposes of this clause and must be paid for as such: (v) time spent  at the direction of the employer attending training courses .’ Therefore all time spent on the induction program must be paid at ordinary time.

If you are lucky to be paid above the normal flat rate, Monjon will take $1000 of this and hold you hostage to what it deems you acting in accordance with their wishes:

Clause 10.2 of the Monjon agreement states: Individual employees may be paid at rates higher than those set out in Schedule A. Where an employee is paid at a rate higher than in Schedule A, the employer may retain the first $1000 of the of the additional amount until the employment ends, provided it the the employee fails to file the notice required under clause 20.2(b) or complete the agreed roster as set out in clause 7.4(in the case of casual employees) the Employer shall be under no obligation to make the payment.

Do not expect to be paid any incentive payments and bonuses, annual leave loadings and loadings for shift work.

Schedule B of the Monjon Agreement excludes these.

Do expect to be paid $22 per hour flat rate for Level 1 pay scale.

The current Level 1 pay scale per hour in the Security Services Industry Award 2010 is:

Night              Day            Sat              Sun              Pub Hol
$23.06         $18.95          $28.43           $37.90    $47.38

Casual Rate:

Night             Day            Sat              Sun              Pub Hol
$30.53        $26.01         $36.42         $46.82          $57.23

Nowhere in the agreement does it contain a clause to stipulate yearly increase to the flat pay rate. This in turn meant that the pay rates remained constant until Monjon decides to increase the hourly rate.

Flat rates of pay are formulated over what an employee would earn over a shift cycle taking in any overtime worked, shift penalties and weekend penalties along with what public holidays would be worked over the year. This amount is then divided by the hours in the shift cycle to arrive at the hourly rate.
It works for those who are on a continual shift roster but not for those who are casual or part time.

A flat rate for continual shift work comprising of a 12 hr shift on a 4 days on 4 days off for a complete shift cycle is approximately $29.90 per hr.

Casual and Part time workers for Monjon are usually worked over the weekends and therefore lose out considerably because they do not receive full penalty rates for weekend work only a flat rate.

So if you choose to work for this company then what are you?

Title: Re: Monjon (Australia) Pty Ltd
Post by dreadman on 04. Sep 2019 at 12:24

The head of invite-only men’s club The Brotherhood and his security company have been fined more than $116,000 for operating with an ‘‘entrenched’’ culture of bullying that left some staff with psychological damage.

John Moncrieff and his company Monjon Australia faced Broadmeadows Magistrates Court on Friday after pleading guilty to failing to maintain a safe workplace at their Cheltenham office between April 2015 and August 2016.

The court heard Mr Moncrieff, a former police officer, regretted his actions, had changed his ways  and was unlikely to reoffend.

But despite his remorse, Magistrate Tim Hoare said the case was serious, convicting and fining Monjon Australia $97,000 and Mr Moncrieff $19,250.

General deterrents loom large,’’ Mr Hoare said.

A confrontation between Mr Moncreiff and his now ex-wife, witnessed by staff, sparked complaints to WorkSafe in October 2015.

WorkSafe inspectors attended the business in December that year where they found an ‘‘entrenched culture of workplace bullying’’ carried out by Mr Moncrieff.

The inspectors found there was persistent, negligent behaviour directed at staff including two female employees being branded ‘‘dumb f---ing lesbians’’, security staff being called ‘‘dumb babies’’ and others labelled skanks, sluts and bitches.

Other employees were told to ‘‘fit in or f--- off’’ and that Mr Moncrieff could ‘‘makes things go away’’ because he was wealthy and connected to The Brotherhood – a discreet men’s club which counts some of Melbourne’s legal, business and policing elite among its members.

Title: Re: Monjon (Australia) Pty Ltd
Post by dreadman on 04. Sep 2019 at 19:08

Director, company fined $116,250 for abusing staff    

John Bernard Moncrieff and Monjon (Australia) Pty Ltd were sentenced in the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court on Friday after pleading guilty to one charge each of failing to provide a working environment that was, as far as reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health.

Moncrieff was fined $19,250 and Monjon a further $97,000.

The court heard that WorkSafe was called to the company’s Cheltenham office following an incident on October 23, 2015, in which Moncrieff pushed an employee along a corridor in front of other workers.

In a second incident Moncrieff refused to allow an employee to leave the office until she assured him she would not resign following the first incident.

WorkSafe’s investigation found that between April 2015 and August 2016, Moncrieff led a culture of entrenched bullying at the company.

The court heard this included Moncrieff speaking to employees in an aggressive and intimidating manner by raising his voice, swearing, and using sexist and racist language to describe his employees.

He also made sexually suggestive comments towards employees, threatened to withhold pay and take away their security licenses, made inappropriate contact with them, and encouraged a culture of managers speaking aggressively to employees.

WorkSafe Executive Director of Health and Safety Julie Nielsen said there was no excuse for inappropriate sexist, racist or demeaning behaviour in any workplace.

"Under no circumstances is it acceptable for managers or directors to abuse their position of power by acting aggressively or inappropriately towards employees," Ms Nielsen said.

"Bullying can have long term health effects on workers that are every bit as serious as those sustained from physical injuries and WorkSafe will not tolerate behaviour of this nature."

To prevent bullying in the workplace employers should:

    Have a workplace policy and procedures for bullying.
    Communicate and promote workplace bullying policies.
    Regularly train employees on workplace bullying and inappropriate behaviour.
    Encourage the reporting of workplace bullying.
    Address reports of workplace bullying as early as possible.
    Provide prompt assistance and support to their employees.

Title: Re: Monjon (Australia) Pty Ltd
Post by dreadman on 04. Sep 2019 at 19:15
'It takes barely anything to flip his lid': Security kingpin's assistant feared for her safety, court told

The executive assistant of security kingpin John Moncrieff, founder of exclusive club The Brotherhood, set up cameras in her house and acquired a baseball bat because she was afraid of her boss, a court has heard.

Mr Moncrieff and his company Monjon Australia faced court on Monday over allegations he bullied staff, including slamming the table during meetings, using the word "f---" regularly, calling security guards "dumb babies" and telling his workers to eat healthy food because they were "fat and lazy".

The court also heard how Mr Moncrieff would rely on The Brotherhood — an invite-only club with members from Melbourne's legal, business and policing elite — for contacts to help with his business, including during an audit.

Worksafe charged Mr Moncrieff, Monjon and his operations manager Herman Pinto in 2017 for failing to maintain a safe workplace.

Mr Moncrieff's executive assistant, Rebecca Apperley, gave evidence on Monday via video link during a four-day committal hearing that she was scared of what her boss was capable of when he was angry.

"I've watched John use his contacts and his staff to make things go away," she said.

"He's easily angered. It takes barely anything to flip his lid.

"I was very concerned if I angered him."

Ms Apperley told the court that she was traumatised after a confrontation involving Mr Moncrieff and his wife, Traci, at the Bayside headquarters of the security firm in October 2015.

Security cameras captured Mr Moncrieff pushing his wife down a hallway during a heated exchange in 2015, but both parties denied an assault had occurred and no police charges were laid.

Ms Apperley said that she had contacted police after the incident because: "I felt if she was killed I would feel responsible."

"I was very, very concerned for Traci's welfare," she said.

Ms Apperley was asked by defence barrister Robert O'Neill about a statement she gave to investigators, including that Mr Moncrieff would regularly use the word "f---".

Mr O'Neill asked Ms Apperley if the language was not directed at staff members but "part of his narrative".

"I think it's both," she said.

Ms Apperley gave evidence that she "couldn't give you a number" when asked how many times Mr Moncrieff had slammed the table during Monday and Friday staff meetings.

"It was too many to count," she said.

She also told the court that Mr Moncrieff had called guards dumb babies and that he once told his staff to replace chocolate with healthy food, referring to one as "fat and lazy"

Ms Apperley also referred to The Brotherhood in her evidence, telling the court that she was asked to send an email requesting a contact at the auditing company SAI Global.

She said she would use the email newsletter service Mailchimp and the words: "Gentleman, is there anyone who has contact in the SAI Group that John could make contact with".

Title: Re: Monjon (Australia) Pty Ltd
Post by dreadman on 04. Sep 2019 at 19:37

In 2011, then Ombudsman George Brouwer released a scathing report on The Brotherhood, which found it had the "potential for illegal and improper exchanges of information or favours".

"The whistleblower also said that attendees at The Brotherhood lunches asked Victoria Police officers to perform LEAP (Law Enforcement Assistance Program) checks and provide information on the status of various police investigations," the report said.

HR manager Susie Camillo also gave evidence via video link during the committal, telling the court that she was scared of Mr Moncrieff because he was so "unpredictable".

"He's had me followed, he's had my family followed, he's had my friends followed," she said.

"Yes I am terrified of him. I fear of seeing him."

The hearing continues on Tuesday.

This was back in February. Who knows what he(John) tried to do to make this go away. Guards or people thinking of applying with them, stay away!

Here are some glassdoor reviews from past employees:,6_IL.7,16_IM965.htm

Australian Security Workers Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5 AE!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.