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 2 Version 3
Samira Ahmed wins sex discrimination equal pay claim against BBC Samira Ahmed wins sex discrimination equal pay claim against BBC
(about 1 hour later)
Presenter took broadcaster to tribunal arguing she was owed almost £700,000 in back pay Presenter’s victory leaves broadcaster potentially facing huge bill for similar claims
Samira Ahmed has won her sex discrimination equal pay claim against the BBC, a judge has ruled. Samira Ahmed has won a sex discrimination pay claim against the BBC in a landmark case that leaves the BBC facing the prospect of a huge bill for similar claims.
The tribunal ended in early November, and the judgment has just come out. In a judgment published on Friday, after the tribunal ended in early November, judges were damning of the broadcaster’s argument that Ahmed’s job as presenter of the audience feedback show Newswatch was significantly different to Jeremy Vine’s as a presenter of 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. Ahmed had argued she was owed almost £700,000 in back pay because of the difference between her £440-an-episode rate and the £3,000 an episode Vine received.
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 judges dismissed the BBC’s argument that Points of View required a “cheeky” presenter with a “glint in the eye”, concluding that there were only “minor differences” on the work the pair did presenting the two comparable programmes.
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”. In a withering assessment, they wrote: “Jeremy Vine read the script from the autocue. He read it in the tone in which it was written. If it told him to roll his eyes, he did. It did not require any particular skill or experience to do that.”
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. It concluded: “Her work on Newswatch was like Jeremy Vine’s work on Points of View under section 65 (1) of the Equality Act 2010.”
But the BBC argued that the two performed “very different roles”. The judges 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”.
The judgment did not specify whether Ahmed would receive the £700,00o she claimed.
A series of high-profile presenters and campaigners hailed the decision and praised Ahmed, with the BBC host Carrie Gracie – who resigned over equal pay in 2018 – telling her: “I could not be more proud of you.”
“As for BBC bosses, time to stop digging,” she added.
The BBC Radio 4 presenter Jane Garvey also praised Ahmed on Twitter, writing: “Just brilliant … it took real courage and she has it.”
The novelist Margaret Atwood also tweeted her congratulations.
The BBC has the option to appeal but a spokesperson said the corporation had just received the verdict and was still considering the implications. If it declines to appeal the verdict the BBC could face an enormous legal bill, substantial costs, and potentially other large settlements with female BBC staff bringing equal pay cases.
During the tribunal the BBC defended paying Vine substantially more than Ahmed, saying that while she was a news journalist, he was a light entertainment presenter who “would often dress up for small visual gags”. Ahmed’s legal team argued this was incorrect, as he was only known to have worn “one wig and one hat” and the jobs were in effect the same.
The judges said: “We have difficulty in understanding what [the BBC] meant by a ‘glint in the eye’ and how that translated into a ‘skill’ or ‘experience’ to the a job. How does one acquire such a skill or experience? In any event, the lighthearted tone and any cheekiness were achieved primarily by the script being written in a particular style. The attempts at humour came from the script.”
They also dismissed the BBC’s case that Vine’s £3,000-an-episode fee was the market rate for such a star. “The evidence indicates the contrary: that Jeremy Vine was paid above the market rate payable for him for Points of View.”
The BBC emphasised that the verdict was based on tribunal judges failing to be convinced by the evidence put forward to justify the difference in pay on grounds other than gender. For instance, the judges were not convinced by the BBC’s evidence that Vine was especially popular when he was offered £3,000 a show in 2008.Although the corporation is still considering the verdict, the BBC does not see it as a blanket ruling affecting all news and entertainment staff, suggesting it could still fight other pay tribunal cases.
Forcing open pay disclosure on the BBC has had a significant effect on rates for women, with many female staff receiving increases since figures for leading staff were first revealed in 2017. About a dozen cases remain live, although at the end of last year some of the women whose cases are heading to tribunal after exhausting the BBC’s internal processes were approached with new offers as managers looked to settle the cases.
Vine’s role presenting Points of View helped the BBC with its obligation to keep his salary high, fulfilling a requirement of a broader pay deal agreed in 2008, which was designed to keep one of the broadcaster’s biggest stars from jumping ship to a commercial rival.
During the tribunal the BBC played down the audience for its own rolling news channel, arguing Ahmed’s programme was made for the “relatively niche” service so should not be considered in the same league as Points of View, which was on BBC One. In addition, an unredacted list of more than 100 women who had brought equal pay cases was also made public in an inadvertent data breach, prompting complaints to the information commissioner by those who did not want their names made public.
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.”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, its 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. She thanked the National Union of Journalists, its 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.”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”.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 had failed to show there was a difference between the two programmes. The 40-page judgment from Judge Harjit Grewal and the panel members Mr S Godecharle and Mr P Secher said the BBC had failed to show there was a significant 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.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’s was the first of many cases in the pipeline. “Women want equality, they want their work respected,” she said.
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.” “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.”