Berkelouw Books, Harry Hartog Operators Sued by Union over Employee Contracts

Why It Matters

The lawsuit could reshape labor standards for retail chains, reinforcing legal protections against unfair contracts and strike‑breaking tactics.

Key Takeaways

• RAFFWU sues Berkelouw, Harry Hartog over 13‑year contracts
• Over 100 staff demanded fair wages and conditions
• Employers cut pay 37% during December bans
• Alleged strike‑breaking tactics include bonuses for inexperienced workers
• Case could reshape Australian retail employment standards

Pulse Analysis

The Retail and Fast Food Workers Union (RAFFWU) has taken the operators of Berkelouw Books and the Harry Hartog chain to court, accusing them of enforcing a 13‑year‑old enterprise agreement that fails to provide basic wage loading and penalty rates. The dispute involves four Berkelouw locations and fourteen Harry Hartog stores across New South Wales, where more than a hundred employees have long complained that their part‑time roles are effectively casualised and that they receive no weekend loading. After a failed bargaining request in August, the union escalated to industrial action in December, prompting the employers to slash wages by 37 percent.

The lawsuit hinges on allegations that the employers deliberately undermined protected industrial action by stripping striking workers of shifts and offering bonuses to temporary staff, a practice that could breach the Fair Work Act’s provisions on adverse action. Australian courts have increasingly scrutinised such conduct, with recent rulings against major retailers for similar strike‑breaking tactics. If RAFFWU secures an injunction or damages, it would reinforce legal protections for unionised workers and signal to the retail sector that cost‑cutting through contract manipulation carries significant risk. The case also tests the enforceability of legacy agreements in a modern gig‑economy environment.

Beyond the immediate parties, the outcome may ripple through the broader Australian retail landscape, where many small chains rely on outdated agreements to control labour costs. A favorable ruling for RAFFWU could accelerate renegotiations of enterprise agreements, prompting higher base wages, weekend loadings, and stronger safeguards against casualisation. Investors and franchisers will likely monitor the proceedings closely, as labour disputes can affect store profitability and brand reputation. For workers, the case underscores the growing power of organized labour to challenge entrenched employment practices and demand equitable conditions in a sector traditionally resistant to unionisation.

Berkelouw Books, Harry Hartog operators sued by union over employee contracts

By Sean Cao · February 20, 2026

RAFFWU member on strike (Source: Isaac Nellist)

The operators of Berkelouw Books and Harry Hartog stores are facing a lawsuit filed by the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union (RAFFWU) over unfair employment contracts.

RAFFWU alleges that Berkelouw Leichhardt Pty Ltd and Cordeaux Creek Pty Ltd have inflicted a “woeful agreement” on bookshop workers across Australia for 13 years.

The employers operate all 14 Harry Hartog bookstores and four Berkelouw Books bookstores at Paddington, Leichhardt, Mona Vale and Hornsby.

According to the filing, over 100 bookshop employees demanded last August that the deal be replaced with a genuine agreement that delivers fair wages and conditions. The employers, however, tried to delay despite RAFFWU’s request for bargaining.

In December, workers represented by RAFFWU commenced bans, which saw employers slash workers’ pay by 37 percent. They then took actions, including a five‑day strike leading into Christmas.

The suit says the employers hatched a plan to strip striking workers of shifts and paid other inexperienced workers bonuses to break the strike. RAFFWU alleges that such actions against members engaging in industrial action are unlawful and adverse.

“These workers have no penalty rates on weeknights or Saturdays,” said Josh Cullinan, RAFFWU director of strategic litigation. “Their part‑time work is casualised without any loading. There are no agreement protections against unfair treatment or unsafe workplaces.”

“We will not let these employers weaponise job insecurity against workers on poverty wages. Our court action will hold the employers to account and defend the right of our members to engage in protected industrial action,” Cullinan added.

Further reading: Coles to defend class action lawsuit over workers’ pay