This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/10/samira-ahmed-wins-equal-pay-claim-against-bbc

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Samira Ahmed wins sex discrimination equal pay claim against BBC Samira Ahmed wins sex discrimination equal pay claim against BBC
(32 minutes later)
Presenter took broadcaster to tribunal arguing she was owed almost £700,000 in back payPresenter took broadcaster to tribunal arguing she was owed almost £700,000 in back pay
Samira Ahmed has won her sex discrimination equal pay claim against the BBC, a judge has ruled.Samira Ahmed has won her sex discrimination equal pay claim against the BBC, a judge has ruled.
The tribunal ended in early November, and the judgment has just come out.The tribunal ended in early November, and the judgment has just come out.
Ahmed claimed she was underpaid for hosting audience feedback show Newswatch when compared with Jeremy Vine’s salary for Points of View.Ahmed claimed she was underpaid for hosting audience feedback show Newswatch when compared with Jeremy Vine’s salary for Points of View.
The judgment said: “Her work on Newswatch was like Jeremy Vine’s work on Points of View under section 65(1) of the Equality Act 2010.”The judgment said: “Her work on Newswatch was like Jeremy Vine’s work on Points of View under section 65(1) of the Equality Act 2010.”
During Ahmed’s landmark case, she argued she was owed almost £700,000 in back pay because of the difference in pay between her £440-an-episode pay for the BBC’s Newswatch and the £3,000 an episode Jeremy Vine received for Points of View. It added that the corporation “has not shown that the difference in pay was because of a material factor which did not involve subjecting the claimant [Ahmed] to sex discrimination”.
But the BBC said the two performed “very different roles”. During Ahmed’s case, she argued she was owed almost £700,000 in back pay because of the difference in pay between her £440-an-episode pay for the BBC’s Newswatch and the £3,000 an episode Jeremy Vine received for Points of View.
Ahmed had told the case, tribunal she “could not understand how pay for me, a woman, could be so much lower than Jeremy Vine, a man, for presenting very similar programmes and doing very similar work”. But the BBC argued that the two performed “very different roles”.
Ahmed said of the judgment: “No woman wants to have to take action against their own employer. I love working for the BBC. I’m glad it’s been resolved.”
She thanked the National Union of Journalists, notably the general secretary, Michelle Stanistreet, and her legal team.
“And everyone – all the men and women who’ve supported me and the issue of equal pay. I’m now looking forward to continuing to do my job, to report on stories and not being one,” she said.
Ahmed received support from public figures including the broadcaster Sandi Toksvig, the lawyer Lady Sayeeda Warsi and the former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger.
A BBC spokesperson said: “We’ll need to consider this judgment carefully. We know tribunals are never a pleasant experience for anyone involved. We want to work together with Samira to move on in a positive way.”
Ahmed had told the tribunal she “could not understand how pay for me, a woman, could be so much lower than Jeremy Vine, a man, for presenting very similar programmes and doing very similar work”.
The 40-page judgment from Judge Harjit Grewal and panel members Mr S Godecharle and Mr P Secher said the BBC failed to show there was a difference between the two programmes.
The BBC’s legal team had argued that Vine was better known, citing audience research carried out in 2017 that found 71% people recognised him, compared with 29% for Ahmed. They also noted that Ahmed had the same salary as Raymond Snoddy, who presented Newswatch before her.
Ahmed’s closing submissions criticised the corporation’s witnesses and evidence. The presenter has been among the female talent at the BBC who have voiced concerns over pay equality after the former China editor Carrie Gracie resigned in 2018 over equal pay.
Gracie told reporters at the tribunal hearing that Ahmed was the first of many cases in the pipeline: “Women want equality, they want their work respected. They don’t want their work to be undervalued. It affects everything about their lives, it’s not just about finances which are important … it is also about self-respect and about progression as well as pay.”
Stanistreet said: “It was an incredibly brave decision on Samira’s part to take forward this case. No one wants to battle their employer in a public tribunal hearing but the BBC’s failure to meaningfully negotiate made legal proceedings inevitable.
“For the BBC, this became a battle over the differences as they saw it between their internal divisional silos of news and entertainment. For the NUJ, this was simply a case of two roles that were commensurate, on two programmes that were supremely comparable, carried out by two high-profile, experienced presenters.”