Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
Australian Security Worker
 
  Return to Website Recent Posts HomeHelpSearchLoginRegisterBroadcast Message to Admin(s)  
 
 
1  New South Wales / NSW Security Contractors N to Z / Re: United Security Enterprises
 on: 09. Oct 2018 at 22:21 
Started by newcasshole | Post by Administrator  
This link to the COMBINED NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT AND FIRST MEETING OF CREDITORS OF COMPANY UNDER ADMINISTRATION https://insolvencynotices.asic.gov.au/browsesearch-notices/notice-details/United...

Contact the Australian Taxation Office about unpaid superannuation. They may be able to help.


2  New South Wales / NSW Security Contractors N to Z / United Security Enterprises
 on: 08. Oct 2018 at 19:40 
Started by newcasshole | Post by newcasshole  
The Hunter Valleys favourite dodgy operator (after BSMS) has gone into Administration, and as such has lost its biggest contract, the SNP patrols for NSW. Guards have been left unpaid for the last month, and unfortunately, Supperanuations for longer. Looks very likely like illegal phoenix activity, but this time SNP weren't having it.

Quote:
NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR
Company details

Company:      United Security Enterprises Pty Ltd
ACN:      140 384 470
Status:      Administrators Appointed
Appointed:      31 August, 2018
Appointer:      under section 436A, the company

Appointment details
Administrator(s):      Shumit Banerjee & Jason Lloyd Porter

See Company details (above) for the date of appointment and the section of the Act under which the administrator was appointed.

Date of Notice:      31 August 2018

Shumit Banerjee

Administrator

Jason Lloyd Porter

JOINT APPOINTEES


A warning to all to stay clear of the shonky dealings of John Murray and co. If you're at BSMS expect an influx of dodgy management as they jump ship.

And always, always, stay ontop of your Super. Some guards are claiming theirs have been unpaid for two years.. Check it!

3  General Category / Patrol Guards / Re: Mobile Patrol Officers
 on: 20. Sep 2018 at 19:38 
Started by Gina | Post by ginashalom  
Donald Raggs wrote on 20. Apr 2015 at 16:14:
The security officer who arrive at your organisation,building or key points of your site in a security vehicle and patrol to ensure all is in order. This means that any potentially vulnerable areas of your site can be regularly checked and your overall security is improved.

Dude well said, by the way, It's on our shoulders to make sure that the environment of our site is fully cooperative to them Cheesy.

Regards,
Ginashalom. Smiley

4  General Category / General Board / Re: Wilson Security in a spot of bother in WA.
 on: 16. Sep 2018 at 13:17 
Started by Warlord | Post by Major Function  
OlinLes, I am a part time employee and I work 37 hours a week Mon-Thurs. If I am called into to work on any other day (Fri, Sat or Sun) I am paid OT. So yes the positives are better.
We need to be paid by the award and not let employers fiddle with it.

5  General Category / General Board / Re: Wilson Security in a spot of bother in WA.
 on: 13. Sep 2018 at 21:18 
Started by Warlord | Post by OlinLes  
Do you guys think the positives still outweigh the negatives at this point?

6  General Category / General Board / Re: OHS
 on: 30. Aug 2018 at 17:55 
Started by Major Function | Post by Major Function  
WHS update, I was told recently that the Risk Assessments had been completed, so I decided to have a look.
They are the same Risk Assessments that were passed onto the WHS committee I was part of. We didn't accept them at the time.
When reading through one of the assessment it refers to SOPs but we don't have SOPs. How can a Risk Assessment refer to something that does not exist. More troubling is that there was an outside audit of the Risk Assessments and it wasn't picked up. What is the auditor doing?

7  General Category / Question and Answers / Re: Looking at getting into security
 on: 12. Jul 2018 at 00:57 
Started by Mungo | Post by Mungo  
Thanks Dreadman I appreciate the help.

8  General Category / Question and Answers / Re: Looking at getting into security
 on: 09. Jul 2018 at 15:51 
Started by Mungo | Post by dreadman  
1. Research what is the minimum requirement to acquire a security license. Here in Victoria, level 2 is enough and level three if you want to be an armed guard.

2. From my experience, no. Most sites have their own first aiders. Unless the role you are applying for requires it.

3. If you are lucky, you can get mon-fri 40 hour weeks. If the site is open 24 hours, you more than likely be in a rotating shift so your employer avoids paying the loading for permanent night shift. Some sites are 12 hour shift varying from 3-4 days a week.

4. Depends on the site. Some places you will on your butt all day and occasionally have to walk. Some places you will on your feet all day either walking or static. 

5. Can you do more than using a web browser? Can you type, use excel, learn new computer programs that are complex and don’t feel intimidated by them.

9  General Category / Question and Answers / Looking at getting into security
 on: 07. Jul 2018 at 20:13 
Started by Mungo | Post by Mungo  
Hi, I'm 21 and looking at getting into unarmed security in Brisbane QLD. I have a few questions about the industry, hopefully you can help me out.  Smiley

1. should i complete a certificate 2 or should i do a certificate 3 in security operations? does it make much of a difference in getting employed ?

2. Is having advanced first aid skills something employers would like to see on a resume ?

3. What are the job rosters like days on/ off and shift lengths ?

4. What are the physical expectations ?

5. What do the employers mean by advanced computer literacy on the job advertisements ?

10  Queensland / QLD Security Contractors N to Z / Re: VIP Security Services Pty Ltd
 on: 24. Jun 2018 at 10:27 
Started by Administrator | Post by Administrator  
https://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-us/news-and-media-releases/2017-media-releases...
Quote:
A Gold Coast security company owner is facing the Federal Circuit Court after allegedly threatening to send staff “straight to the dole queue” if they spoke to Fair Work Ombudsman inspectors.

The Fair Work Ombudsman has commenced legal action against Adam Marcinkowski and his company VIP Security Services Pty Ltd for allegedly taking unlawful adverse action against three employees and underpaying staff almost $16,000.

VIP Security was contracted to provide security services at a range of Gold Coast City Council sites, including three libraries, for two years until April this year.

Fair Work Ombudsman inspectors visited some of these sites last year to check security staff were being paid their minimum lawful entitlements as part of a proactive campaign aimed at ensuring local government procurement of security services was compliant with federal workplace laws.

The Fair Work Ombudsman alleges that after the visits, Mr Marcinkowski directed a supervisor to tell all security guards employed by VIP Security that if they spoke to Fair Work inspectors, their employment would be terminated.

During a telephone conversation, Mr Marcinkowski allegedly said: “Can you just do me a favour, get around all the sites and if I hear that anyone of our guards has spoken to them (Fair Work), they can just f…… go straight to the dole queue”.

Mr Marcinkowski allegedly also told the supervisor: “If they talk to those f……, if I find out who, that somebody’s talked to them, right, they’re getting the sack”.

It is alleged that Mr Marcinkowski and VIP Security followed through on the threat, yelling at and later dismissing one full-time employee because he sought advice about his workplace rights from the Fair Work Ombudsman following a reduction in his hours. 

It is alleged that in the weeks following the visits by inspectors, Mr Marcinkowski also dismissed two other guards, including one for refusing to sign a back-dated agreement (which would have retroactively removed his leave entitlements), and another after he failed to return to work immediately after spending several days in an intensive care unit with pneumonia.

The dismissal of the three workers allegedly contravened the section of the Fair Work Act that makes it unlawful to take adverse action against an employee for exercising a workplace right, such as taking personal leave or requesting assistance from the Fair Work Ombudsman.

The conduct related to the worker who had been in hospital also contravened the section of the Fair Work Act that makes it unlawful to dismiss an employee who was temporarily absent from work because of a prescribed illness or injury.