Australian fashion label Kookai accused of making staff buy their clothes

A popular Aussie retailer is accused of making its low-paid workers wear its pricey clothing at their own expense, but staff claim it gets even worse than that.

Exclusive: Fashion retail staff are being pressured to fork out thousands of dollars a year to wear the latest season trends — only to be told it can’t be worn once sold out.

The “unfair” rule for staff was shared by a former employee who took to social media to expose Australian fashion label Kookai.

Sydney-based singer and songwriter Peta Mai shared her experience after Melbourne woman Adelle Petropoulos blasted the retailer earlier this month over an employee’s “disgraceful attitude”.

“When I started working at Kookai they made the girls buy the clothes so that obviously they could help to sell them to potential customers,” Ms Mai claims in the TikTok video.

“What I didn’t realise was that as soon as those clothes sell out, you can’t wear them anymore.

“So I was basically pressured into buying a $250 dress. Yes I got a discount on it, but it sold out in a day. So I wore that dress for a day and then I wasn’t allowed to wear it anymore.”

Under the Fair Work Act if an employer requires any special clothing to do a job they need to cover the cost unless otherwise stated in an enterprise agreement.

Sydney-based singer and songwriter Peta Mai on TikTok.

Mai claims Kookai made their staff buy the label’s clothes. Picture: Instagram

Retail and Fast Food Workers Union Secretary Josh Cullinan said the requirement is “simply unlawful” and has been a “huge issue” among female members in the sector.

According to the union, almost all retail workers in fashion retail are paid just over $23 an hour for non-managerial employees and nearly $30 for a casual worker.

“Our members are required to wear in-season, current items available for sale. This is simply special clothing which must be provided for free by the employer,” Mr Cullinan said.

“This wage theft is costing low paid workers millions of dollars … it’s scandalous.”

Kookai said staff are only encouraged to wear their products which includes “current season, sale product, sold out product or product from previous seasons”.

Most retailers deny there is any formal requirement and argue that workers have been provided with appropriate reimbursement.

Melbourne makeup artist Adelle Petropoulos has expressed her disappointment at Australian clothing label Kookai. Picture: TikTok

And while most stores say wearing the clothing is not compulsory and is merely “encouraged” or “expected”, the union said in practice the position is clear.

“Our members know it is not just encouraged, it is required. If an employer expects the items to be worn, then it is a requirement,” Mr Cullinan said.

“The reality is that these low paid insecurely employed workers are propping up the profits of these employers unlawfully.

“It means dozens of products are purchased each year and any “discount” still leaves workers with stolen wages of $1000 or more per year.”

A staff member at a well known fashion label, who asked to remain anonymous, said clothes worn on shift needed to be “current and full price” and once the item was on sale it could no longer be worn.

Associate Professor Rae Cooper from the University of Sydney Business School. Picture: John Appleyard

“My current managers are understanding about the ridiculous rule but there is an air of anxiety when upper management shows up,” the Melbourne worker said.

“I know of some other employees that have been told to not wear something that is considered old or sold out”.

Professor of gender, work and employment relations at the University of Sydney, Rae Cooper, said good employers “don’t ask their staff to subsidise their operations”.

“We should not ask employees to subsidise the look of a store, any more than we should ask an employed plumber to supply the tools they use on site,” Prof Cooper said.

“Because this clothing will not be a uniform under ATO guidelines – that is, it won’t have the employer logo on it – this also means that the employees can’t claim the cost on their tax.”

“So they are being hit with a double-cost whammy.”

A spokesperson for the Fair Work Ombudsman said whether an employer can require staff to purchase goods will depend on “what is reasonable in all the circumstances”.