Seeley International's boss has opened up about the "emotional" moment he told workers more than 120 Border jobs would be lost by the end of next year.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Jon Seeley, group managing director of Seeley International, made the trip from Adelaide on Tuesday, March 5, to inform workers the company's Border business would be closing down in December 2025, 36 years after it started.
"It's tough," he said. "We sat down with some of our long term workers first thing this morning, some who've been here the whole time.
"And, yeah, it's emotional. They understand, but it'll sink in for people over coming days and weeks.
"Any way you look at it, it's tough news for people to hear."
Mr Seeley said two government decisions "which completely changed the finances ... and made it impossible to continue", influenced the closure.
However, Mr Seeley assured employees they would be given full entitlements and offered employment at the company's Adelaide facilities.
"We'll provide financial support for those who can move," he said.
"And for those who can't, our company is still in good shape financially, so there's no question about everyone's entitlements being paid when the time comes (December 2025)."
One of the driving factors behind the closure was the impending changes to federal industrial relation law, which, Mr Seeley says, "are designed to punish casual employees and their employers".
He explained that the company's Albury factory, which focuses on ducted gas heaters, needs an influx of casual labourers over winter.
Conversely, the company's Adelaide facility, focusing on evaporative coolers, needs workers over summer.
"(But under these regulations), if anyone in the factory or in your business has a similar role and they're permanent, then that person can't be casual," he said.
"The legislation is just extreme.
"It imposes all kinds of impasse in our business that we can no longer have two locations with different seasonal peaks."
Mr Seeley took aim at federal employment minister Tony Burke, calling his consultation with employers a "sham".
"In the lead up to this we've sought to raise our concerns, along with other employers, with Tony Burke," he said.
"(He) has had all sorts of sham consultation processes with employment groups and completely rode roughshod over all of it.
"(He) says, 'oh, no, the laws are not designed to make legitimate casual employment difficult', but the actual laws, when you read them, are designed to make it impossible."
In response, Mr Burke dismissed Mr Seeley's claims as "absurd".
"Mr Seeley has made a business decision which has terrible consequences for more than a hundred local workers," he said.
"Instead of taking responsibility for his own decisions he has made absurd claims about laws which make sure workers are not underpaid.
"He does himself no credit with his record of wild exaggerations. His claims about those laws which have not even commenced are inaccurate, but I'm sure he already knows that."
Mr Seeley argued the laws not only punish employers, but employees.
"We have people who work in the seasonal peak every year ... (and) we say, would you take a permanent job?" he said.
"Some do, but the others say, no, this is my choice. I work casual, work hard, get lots of money, 25 per cent leave loading, then I'll do other stuff.
"But under the laws established by the federal government, that's impossible."
Mr Seeley said while he doesn't have anything against unions, he believes they are behind the legislation.
"Partly because, I believe, casual employees typically are not union members," he said.
"Unions are treated by this federal government as if they represent all workers, even though they represent less than 10 per cent of workers.
"We have some union members on this site and we have no problem with that. It's not unions, per se, it's extreme, militant unions and a federal government who is solving problems that don't exist."
The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union was contacted for comment.
Mr Seeley said the Victorian government's decision to ban gas for new homes was another factor in the "difficult but necessary decision".