Union boss fined for threat to employees

A SENIOR union official engaged in "highly reprehensible" behaviour after threatening to "get" two employees of a construction company as part of a safety dispute.

By InvestSMART · 24 Dec 2010

By InvestSMART ·
24 Dec 2010

Comments

A SENIOR union official engaged in "highly reprehensible" behaviour after threatening to "get" two employees of a construction company as part of a safety dispute.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union assistant state secretary John Setka was fined $6000 in the Federal Magistrates Court this week for acting in an improper manner after a March 2008 incident at the ANZ Docklands site.

Magistrate Philip Burchardt found Setka had screamed at the Bovis Lend Lease construction manager and general foreman and had said: "This job's a f---ing deathtrap and a disgrace. If you kill anyone on this job I'm going to quit my f---ing job and get you."

When asked if that was a threat, Setka replied: "I'm not f---ing threatening; I'm f---ing promising. I will get you and you [and pointed at both Bovis employees]."

Mr Burchardt said although he had no doubt that Setka was "at least in large part" concerned about safety, he was not prepared to form a more precise conclusion about his motivation as he did not give evidence.

He said witnesses called for the Australian Building and Construction Commission had conceded that safety on the site that day was inadequate.

But Mr Burchardt said Setka as a senior officer of the CFMEU should set a better example and had shown no contrition. "The conduct in which he engaged was highly reprehensible."

He said he decided to fine him $6000 just below the maximum fine of $6600 because it was a serious breach of the Workplace Relations Act and as a deterrent to Setka and so he would appreciate that "he must control himself".

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner Leigh Johns welcomed the penalty and said Setka's behaviour would not be accepted in any other industry: "Mr Setka's abusive tirade did nothing to rectify the safety issues on site."

Setka, along with a former CFMEU official, faces a criminal case in April after being charged over an alleged assault on an ABCC inspector in March 2009.

Go to Google News, then click "Follow" button to add us.

Share this article and show your support

Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…

What happened in the John Setka fine case at the ANZ Docklands site?

A senior CFMEU official, John Setka, was fined $6,000 in Federal Magistrates Court after an incident in March 2008 at the ANZ Docklands site where he screamed at and threatened two Bovis Lend Lease employees, calling the job a "deathtrap" and saying "I will get you."

Why was John Setka fined under the Workplace Relations Act?

Magistrate Philip Burchardt found Setka acted in an improper manner and breached the Workplace Relations Act by making abusive and threatening remarks to construction staff. The magistrate described the conduct as "highly reprehensible" and imposed a $6,000 fine as a deterrent.

Which companies and organisations are mentioned in the article about the threat and fine?

The article names the CFMEU (Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union), Bovis Lend Lease (the construction employer whose manager and foreman were threatened), the ANZ Docklands site where the incident occurred, and the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), whose commissioner commented on the penalty.

Did the court say there were safety issues on the ANZ Docklands site?

Witnesses called by the ABCC conceded that safety on the site that day was inadequate. However, Magistrate Burchardt said he could not form a precise conclusion about Setka's motivation because Setka did not give evidence.

How did regulators respond to the fine and what does that mean for construction oversight?

ABCC Commissioner Leigh Johns welcomed the penalty, saying Setka's tirade did nothing to fix safety issues and that such behaviour wouldn't be accepted in other industries. The response shows regulators are prepared to use penalties to enforce standards and deter abusive or improper conduct on construction sites.

Could this incident and fine affect the reputation or operations of the construction company involved?

While the article doesn’t detail financial impacts, it notes safety concerns and public regulatory attention. Everyday investors may want to monitor any reputational fallout, regulatory scrutiny, and whether safety issues affect contract delivery or project timelines for companies involved.

Is John Setka facing any other legal action related to construction-site incidents?

Yes. The article states Setka, along with a former CFMEU official, faces a criminal case in April after being charged over an alleged assault on an ABCC inspector in March 2009.

Why was the fine set at $6,000 rather than the maximum amount?

Magistrate Burchardt imposed $6,000—just below the maximum $6,600—because he viewed the breach as serious and wanted the penalty to act as a deterrent, while noting Setka showed no contrition and should set a better example as a senior union officer.