John Setka Admits Breaching Workplace Laws in AFL Umpiring Chief Case
John Setka has admitted breaking workplace laws in a bitter campaign against former building watchdog-turned-AFL umpiring chief Stephen McBurney – and he is not backing away from it.
The former Victorian secretary of the CFMEU faces a fine of up to $18,730 after conceding he breached the Fair Work Act by trying to pressure the AFL into sacking McBurney in mid-2024. The financial hit could run far higher, with the union refusing to indemnify his legal costs, leaving Setka exposed to a hefty bill of his own.
He did not appear in the Federal Court on Friday. His barrister, Margo Harris, painted the picture of a man whose power has ebbed away: retired, in the midst of a divorce, and spending most of his time caring for his elderly mother. That, she argued, should count against any severe penalty.
“This is going to cost the AFL a lot of f**king money”
The court heard that while still CFMEU boss, Setka launched a two‑week blitz of social media posts, press conferences and media interviews aimed squarely at McBurney, who is now the AFL’s head of umpiring.
His message to the league was blunt.
“This is going to cost the AFL a lot of f**king money. I hope it's worth it,” he said at one point.
“Projects without our full co-operation are going to be a f**king misery for them. They will regret the day they ever employed him.”
The Fair Work Ombudsman alleges those threats were not just bluster but unlawful coercion, because they were tied directly to McBurney’s previous role as Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (ABCC), where he took part in more than 50 cases against the union between 2018 and 2023.
The FWO prosecuted both Setka and the CFMEU, arguing the demands to sack McBurney were punishment for that lawful work.
On Friday, barristers for both Setka and the union admitted the breaches.
Was it a campaign? Court clashes over intent
Harris tried to blunt the picture of a calculated public crusade. She told Justice John Snaden there was no evidence Setka “actively sought” media attention, even though he fronted newspapers, radio and television and used those platforms to call for McBurney’s removal.
She went further, saying he did not “deliberately” wage a media campaign against the former commissioner.
That drew a sharp query from the bench. What exactly did she mean by “deliberate”?
“When I say deliberate, there's a range of deliberateness. It's not a question of being pregnant or not pregnant,” Harris replied.
“It comes in the stream of the interview. There's a question asked of him, he answers it.”
The FWO was having none of it. Barrister Marc Felman said no one forced Setka to step in front of microphones.
“There can be no question that this is a media campaign,” he told the court.
The rhetoric during that period was white-hot. At one press conference, Setka branded McBurney “a zealot” who “hates unions” and “hates workers in general”. On social media, he shared a mock “(Not) Wanted Dead or Alive” poster featuring McBurney’s image.
Felman described the breaches of the Fair Work Act as “very, very serious”. People call for umpires to be sacked all the time, he noted, but this crossed the line because it was tied to McBurney’s previous, lawful role enforcing building laws.
The AFL stood behind McBurney then and still does. A four-time grand final umpire, he remains the league’s head of officiating.
CFMEU pleads culture change as heavy fines loom
The case lands just days before Victoria’s Royal Commission into the state government’s “Big Build” begins public hearings, with major infrastructure projects already shadowed by allegations of corruption and organised crime. Setka, who left the CFMEU weeks after his tirades against McBurney, also faces separate criminal charges over alleged harassment of the union’s administrators.
The union itself is staring at a maximum penalty of $93,900.
Barrister Andrew White, appearing for the CFMEU, urged the court to recognise what he called a sharp cultural break from the Setka era. The union is now under administration, with hundreds of former officials removed or gone.
White insisted the old mindset – that fines were simply “the cost of doing business” – had been junked.
“A new culture of lawful but robust unionism is taking hold,” he said.
Whether the court accepts that argument, and how far it tempers the penalties for both Setka and the union, will become clear in time.
Justice Snaden will hand down his decision on the sanctions at a later date, a ruling that will test just how far Australian law is prepared to go when union muscle collides with the boundaries of lawful pressure.
