Strict employment practices are not always fair game at Sports Direct
By Angela Gorton of law firm Lupton Fawcett Denison Till
CHRISTMAS is meant to be a time of goodwill and happiness. Alas not for the staff and agency workers supplied to Sports Direct if latest reports are true. Instead they seem to be earning themselves the reputation of being the Scrooge of the festive season.
It has been reported that parents are sending their sick children in to school as they fear losing their jobs if they fail to attend work at the company. The company apparently operates a 6 “strikes” and you are out rule.
“Strikes” being given for lateness, genuine and reported sickness absence, excessive toilet breaks and using mobile phones at work. Schools have indicated they have been unable to contact parents who work at Sports Direct to obtain authority to administer medication to sick pupils due to fear of a “strike” if they answer the phone.
Recent reports also indicate the company requires employees to be thoroughly searched at the end of shifts for up to 15 minutes, in their own time and without payment, questioning whether such practices fall foul of employment legislation. Were the additional time to be considered “working time” the rate of pay would fall below the National Minimum Wage levels.
The company was heavily criticised earlier in the year for its use of zero hours contracts for over 80% of its warehouse staff. Used correctly, such contracts allow for flexibility. Used incorrectly, they can result in exploitation of some of the poorest workers. The Government put an end to the use of exclusivity clauses in zero hours contracts in May 2015 in an effort to curb the abuse of zero hours workers. However, unions’ report that workers are fearful of raising employment concerns about Sports Direct for fear of losing hours or jobs.
If correct, such reports are concerning, as arguably zero hours contracts are being used to deter workers from exercising their employment rights. The use of zero hours contracts in circumstances where workers routinely work long hours or standard shift patterns has been roundly criticised. However, the Government has not yet seen fit to legislate in this respect. If the allegations of misuse on such a large scale by a major employer turn out to be true then the pressure on the Government to act will surely escalate.
Additionally there is plenty of evidence to suggest that overly strict and oppressive employment practices are counter productive in terms of productivity and overall operational effectiveness. It is for employers to decide how they want to run their business but it should not come as any surprise to those businesses that choose to flout the law (or sail very close to the wind) that their working practices will be exposed, and ultimately their brand and reputation may suffer as a result.
