Ballarat childcare employees demand entitlements

The United Children childcare and kindergarten centre based in Sebastopol became 'Sesame Kids' in 2018 after founder Margo Vasilevska sold her concerns to a new owner, Mageda Charrouf.

Following the transfer of the business, Ms Vasilevska says she paid the entitlements owed to 14 of her staff to Ms Charrouf, as she was legally required to do under Australian business law.

Those staff have not received their entitlements however, and an amount of over $15,000 is outstanding to them.

Following receipt of the funds from Ms Vasilevska, Ms Charrouf returned the bank cheque to Ms Vasilevka's solicitor. She claims it is the former owner's responsibility to pay the former employees.

Ms Vasilevska says she has nothing but the highest regard for her former employees, some of whom she has taken with her to new ventures in Melbourne.

"These people need to be paid what they are owed," Ms Vasilevska told The Courier.

"It guts me they haven't got their money. I have personally made the transaction to ensure the money was available. It's very straightforward; from a taxation and legal perspective the new owner is responsible for the entitlements."

Shantelle Bernard is one of the staff owed money.

Now working with Ms Vasilevska in Melbourne, she says the issue seems to have simply gone backwards and forwards without resolution.

"It's pretty simple - we just want to be paid what we are owed." Ms Bernard says.

Other staff spoken to by The Courier echoed her claims.

One said she had worked in the childcare industry for 19 years and had never had any issues until recently.

"She (Ms Charrouf) simply refuses to speak to me," the worker said.

The staff members are owed anywhere between just under $3000 to just over $200 each, making recompense through the Small Claims Tribunal economically unfeasible.

The Courier has sighted the amounts owing.

Ms Vasilevska's solicitor says there's no reason he can think of for the issue to remain unresolved.

"These contracts are common and they are straightforward," he told The Courier.

"The long service leave components and adjustments are transferred to the new owner when the workers go across. Either they get a redundancy, or the new owner takes responsibility for the amount. I'm completely at a loss to understand why this is an issue over such a sum - while I understand the principle involved."

Secretary at the Ballarat Trades and Labour Council Brett Edgington said it was good sign the workers approached Trades Hall with their concerns.

"Wage theft - in this case theft of entitlements on transfer of business - is all too common," Mr Edgington said.

"For these childcare workers, the amounts owed are a lot of money. It should legally be in their pockets.

"It is abhorrent that the transfer of business has been conducted in this way, where workers entitlements under law have been the last consideration. Workers' wages and entitlements should be the first consideration."

"This is why we are waiting with anticipation for the Victorian Government's new Wage Theft legislation later this year. Hopefully it will simplify this process for tens of thousands who have experienced theft of their wages and entitlements.

"Trades Hall will continue to support these workers with whatever it takes to recover the stolen entitlements."

"We want the former and current owners to do the right thing and pay these workers what they are owed.

"Trades Hall calls upon the Federal Government to follow Victoria's lead and criminalise wage theft. We also call on the Federal Government to properly resource the FairWork Ombudsman and remove the costly and difficult barriers in accessing justice."

The Courier left a message to discuss the issue with Ms Charrouf, but had no response by deadline.

Apology to Mageda Charrouf

An earlier version of this article failed to make it clear that the new owner, Mageda Charrouf, had returned to the former owner's solicitors the moneys which had been provided for payment of those entitlements, and thus may have been understood as suggesting, incorrectly, that Ms Charrouf had kept the moneys intended for distribution to the employees.

This was not intended, and we apologise to Ms Charrouf if any reader understood the article that way.