Fair Work Act 2009

s.739 - Dispute resolution

Seisa Enterprises Trading AS Seisa Enterprises - Campground: Seisa Enterprises - Meatworks; - Seisa Enterprises Service Station; Seisa Enterprises - Supermarket

Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the modern award and the NES - Recommendation issued

• [1] On 25 March 2025, the Australian Workers' Union (the Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) seeking to resolve a dispute with Seisa Enterprises (the Respondent).

• [2] The Respondent operates a services station, supermarket and campgrounds in Seisa, a remote community on the Cape York peninsula, near Thursday island. The dispute concerns two of the Applicant's members who have not been paid their wages since approximately 6 March 2025.

• [3] As a background to the dispute, there was a change in the board of directors of the Respondent. Subsequently, the financial records for the business have not been made available to the new board of directors. Further, the new board of the Respondent has had difficulty in accessing to the bank account for the business. The result has been that the business has been unable to make payments to a number of long-standing employees, including the Applicant's members, Mr Gregory Bond and Mr William Fulton.

• [4] A conference was held with Commissioner Hunt on 27 March 2025 with a report back on 7 April 2025. The Commissioner was endeavouring to have the employees paid and to ensure that there be no further work undertaken until the payments had been made. On the 15 April 2025, at a further conference, the Respondents notified the Applicant that they now had the access to the bank account and were going to facilitate a payment of $250 to each of the affected staff. Further, standdown letter had been agreed to and would be issued shortly.

• [5] On 2 May 2025, the Applicant requested that the matter be relisted as the standdown letters had not been issued by the Respondent to the affected employees. The matter was re-allocated to my Chambers.

• [6] On 13 May 2025, I facilitated a conference with the parties. The parties advised that the affected Members had still not been paid beyond the $250 payment and that the Respondent is facing ongoing issues with the previous board and has thus far been unable to obtain the necessary financial records. Given that there has been little progress made, and given the importance of the Respondent's facilities in a remote community, and the need to bring this matter to resolution, I have decided to issue a Recommendation.

• [7] The Respondent is obliged to pay its staff their wages and entitlements in accordance with the relevant award, as they are aware. I recommend that the Union establish the details and quantum of the unpaid wages and entitlements and make an application to the relevant jurisdiction to reclaim the wages owing.

• [8] This will necessarily involve the courts and there may be penalties applied. However, the Respondent has had time to resolve these matters and, due to a series of issues, of which some are beyond their control, the Respondent has not been able to resolve the issue as of today.

• [9] I now recommend this course of action to the Applicant and encourage the Respondent to continue to take steps to work through the issues which prevent the lawful payment of these employees.

• [10] The dispute should be considered resolved.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer