Advertisement
UK markets closed
  • FTSE 100

    7,895.85
    +18.80 (+0.24%)
     
  • FTSE 250

    19,391.30
    -59.37 (-0.31%)
     
  • AIM

    745.67
    +0.38 (+0.05%)
     
  • GBP/EUR

    1.1612
    -0.0071 (-0.61%)
     
  • GBP/USD

    1.2370
    -0.0069 (-0.55%)
     
  • Bitcoin GBP

    51,954.02
    +974.53 (+1.91%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    1,381.45
    +68.83 (+5.24%)
     
  • S&P 500

    4,962.36
    -48.76 (-0.97%)
     
  • DOW

    37,910.13
    +134.75 (+0.36%)
     
  • CRUDE OIL

    83.17
    +0.44 (+0.53%)
     
  • GOLD FUTURES

    2,409.90
    +11.90 (+0.50%)
     
  • NIKKEI 225

    37,068.35
    -1,011.35 (-2.66%)
     
  • HANG SENG

    16,224.14
    -161.73 (-0.99%)
     
  • DAX

    17,737.36
    -100.04 (-0.56%)
     
  • CAC 40

    8,022.41
    -0.85 (-0.01%)
     

Sports Direct's Ashley summoned to appear before British lawmakers

LONDON, March 15 (Reuters) - British lawmakers have formally summoned Sports Direct founder Mike Ashley to answer questions in parliament about the treatment of workers at his company, Britain's biggest sportswear retailer.

The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee said it could take action against Ashley if he refused to appear before the committee in the lower house of parliament in June.

"Should Mr Ashley not agree to appear on June 7, the Committee reserves the right to take the matter further, including seeking the support of the House of Commons in respect of any complaint of contempt," it said.

Representatives of Ashley could not be immediately reached for comment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sports Direct has rejected criticism that it effectively pays some staff at its main warehouse below the legal minimum wage, and has ordered a review of working conditions there.

On Friday, Ashley wrote to the committee's chairman, Ian Wright, saying the lawmaker from the opposition Labour Party was being deliberately antagonistic and abusing parliamentary procedure in an attempt to create a media circus.

Parliament can in theory order a person's imprisonment for contempt, although its powers on such actions are untested in recent times, according to a government paper published in 2012. (Reporting by James Davey; Editing by Jon Boyle)