CFMEU warlords Michael O’Connor and John Setka in court stoush

The civil war rocking the CFMEU has spilled into the Federal Court, with claims John Setka’s branch ‘poached’ rival members.

Michael O'Connor, left, and John Setka. Pictures: David Geraghty/AAP

The civil war rocking the nation’s most militant union has spilled into the Federal Court, with lawyers for CFMEU national secretary Michael O’Connor accusing John Setka’s branch of breaching union rules by recruiting members from a rival division and signing them up to new workplace agreements.

The timing of the extraordinary publish stoush between senior officials of the Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union has frustrated union leaders campaigning to stop proposed government laws designed to weaken the CFMEU.

As the ACTU urges union members to tell their family, friends and co-workers to email Senate crossbenchers and express opposition to the Coalition’s “union-busting” Ensuring Integrity Bill, the CFMEU’s rival camps put their acrimonious relations on public display in the matter of “Michael O’Connor V John Setka & Ors” in Court 6K in Melbourne.

Mr O’Connor launched the action in January, accusing Mr Setka’s construction and general division of breaching union rules by “poaching” members from the union’s manufacturing division.

Mr O’Connor provided four affidavits and gave evidence before judge David O’Callaghan on Wednesday. Mr Setka, who was not in court, has not made an affidavit and lawyers said he would not give evidence at the hearings.

Barrister Herman Borenstein QC, representing Mr O’Connor, told the court on Wednesday that 219 manufacturing division members had been recruited by the construction branch.

Mr Borenstein said Mr Setka’s branch had subsequently struck new agreements with floor-covering companies, some of which had already been approved by the Fair Work Commission.

He said the workers approached and recruited by Mr Setka’s branch were only eligible to be members of the manufacturing division and not the construction branch.

He said the conduct by Mr Setka’s division was in breach of the union’s national and divisional rules.

Mr O’Connor’s legal action follows months of union infighting that coincided with Mr Setka being charged last year with harassing his wife, and the ALP’s bid to expel him as a member.

Mr Setka, who was placed on a one-year good behaviour bond in June after pleading guilty, resigned from the ALP in September and he continues to defy calls from ACTU secretary Sally McManus and an array of national unions to quit as state CFMEU leader.

The alleged poaching and the retaliatory court action are driven by a breakdown in relations between Mr O’Connor and Mr Setka. Officials said Mr Setka remained indignant that Mr O’Connor failed to publicly back him last year and the poaching was payback for the lack of support.

Lawyers for Mr Setka’s construction and general Victorian division branch had previously called for the dispute to be settled internally rather than through litigation.

The construction and general division argues that its rules mean the workers concerned who work on construction sites, including glaziers and floor coverers, can choose to join the construction division.

It says it makes more sense for them to be covered by the same division as other on-site construction workers.

Mr O’Connor’s lawyers said the union’s rules did not allow the construction division to encourage members of the manufacturing division to resign and then seek to enrol them in construction.

Mr Borenstein said the manufacturing division had received 219 resignations and a number of them had occurred since the previous court hearing.

He said officials of the construction division had sought to represent the industrial interests of workers in the manufacturing area by negotiating enterprise agreements with floor companies to cover the workers.

He said a small number of agreements had been submitted and approved by the commission, while some deals were awaiting the outcome of the court case.

The manufacturing divis­ion represents workers in the forestry, furnishing, building prod­ucts, pulp and paper, textile, clothing and footwear manufact­uring industries.

Poaching from a rival division is in breach of CFMEU rules and Mr Setka’s alleged conduct provoked a public rebuke from the union’s influential mining and energy division last year, which accused his branch of engaging in the “unprincipled” poaching of members.