O'Connor v Setka
Citation: [2020] FCAFC 195
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 200
What happened
Michael O'Connor, National Secretary of the CFMMEU, sought court orders to enforce union rules requiring that persons in certain occupations in Victoria remain allocated to the Manufacturing Division. John Setka and other Construction and General Division branch officials encouraged over 200 manufacturing division members in occupations including floor laying and cabinet making to resign and join the Construction and General Division, contrary to the union's membership allocation rules.
What was decided
The appeal was allowed. The Full Court declared that persons eligible for membership under Rule 2(F) in Victoria are properly allocated to the Manufacturing Division, not the Construction and General Division. The court ordered respondents to cease inducing manufacturing division members to resign and to cease enrolling such persons in the construction division. The court issued specific compliance directions and required filed affidavits confirming compliance.
What it means for employers
Union membership disputes, while internal matters, can reach court where rules are breached. Employers should not interfere in union internal affairs but may be affected if industrial action follows from unresolved membership disputes.
What it means for employees
Employees should be cautious about union division changes, as membership allocation disputes can involve complex rule interpretations. The union rules determine which division represents an employee's interests and which industrial conditions apply.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2020/2020fcafc0195Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →