CESSNOCK City Council will be asked to lead a statewide council boycott of Pacific Brands products in response to the company's decision to cut its Australian manufacturing workforce, including 83 jobs at Cessnock.
The council will also be asked to write to Sarah Murdoch, Pat Rafter and Michael Clarke, who have helped promote Pacific Brands products, asking them to sever ties with the company.
Two Cessnock councillors have lodged separate motions, to go before Wednesday's council meeting, calling for the moves.
In his motion, Cr James Hawkins said the council should write a "strongly worded" letter to Pacific Brands chief executive Sue Morphet expressing its "concern and anger" about the job losses and to inform her that it would immediately stop buying the company's products.
The council buys King Gee outdoor uniforms and other apparel the Pacific Brands group makes.
The motion says the council should investigate alternative Australian-made clothing suppliers.
It also urges Cessnock council to write to the Local Government and Shires Association and NSW mayors, asking other councils to follow suit, until the company reverses its decision to sack the workers.
And Cr Hawkins wants the council to write to Pacific Brands' celebrity spokespeople asking them to sever ties with the company.
His motion says the council should be a leading voice on the matter, as it was "un-Australian".
It was also "disgraceful" for company senior executives to be "cashing in" when employees were set to lose their jobs.
Yesterday, Cr Hawkins said the job losses would have a huge effect on the community, and that governments at all levels should be supporting Australian jobs in any ways they could.
Cr James Ryan has also lodged a motion to support the Cessnock workers.
He wants the council to call on the Federal Government to revise the Newstart criteria, which is presently off limits to single people with savings of $2500 and married couples with $5000 saved.
From April, the limits will be lifted to $5000 and $10,000.
Cr Ryan said there was no justification for discriminating against people who had built up some savings.