It has been announced that retailer Sports Direct is to review terms and conditions of its agency staff after it was slated in the press for its employment practices.
Accusations against the company, which is owned by Mike Ashley, include staff being “named and shamed” over the tannoy, punishing ill staff and paying thousands of employees less than minimum wage.
In a statement issued today, the Sports Direct board said: “Sports Direct has sought to address questions relating to its employment practices on a case-by-case basis directly with the enquirer, but it has become evident that by doing so various parties have chosen to ignore the facts provided and have continued to present an unfair portrayal of the company's employment practices.
“Sadly, it is also now clear that some others have chosen to rely on this portrayal when making public statements about Sports Direct, rather than obtaining information directly from the company before commenting.
The company continued: “Neither agency workers nor employees are subjected to 'naming and shaming' via publication of a league table identifying individuals by name. The company uses an anonymous ranking system to monitor performance. An individual's unique number (known only to the employment agencies, the company and the worker) benchmarks staff against the anonymised data of their peers. Individuals can check their performance, should they wish to do so.
“The warehouse tannoy is not used to 'harangue' or 'name and shame' staff; the tannoy is used for logistical reasons, for example, to redeploy staff to other areas of the building or to let staff know that a truck is waiting for stock to be dispatched.
“Sports Direct does not penalise its staff for being ill. Sanctions may be applied if workers fail to follow the company's reasonable sickness absence notification procedures, which are in line with industry best practice. The company is not aware of any occasions on which sick children have not been able to be collected from school by their parents. Sports Direct allows staff time off to look after dependants in such circumstances.
“Neither Sports Direct nor the agencies it uses discriminate in favour of or against any applicant or worker on the basis of nationality or for any other reason. Both the company and the agencies with which it works are equal opportunities employers. There are workers of various nationalities, including local British citizens, currently working in the warehouse. Neither the company nor the agencies distinguish between workers of different nationalities; Sports Direct and the agencies value the contribution of all workers equally.”
