Samira Ahmed wins equal pay case against BBC

Corporation’s claims that Newswatch and Points of View are very different programmes are without merit, tribunal rules

Samira Ahmed has won her sex discrimination case against the BBC.

The presenter had argued that her pay for presenting Newswatch should have been on a par with that of Jeremy Vine, who presented Points of View.

A judge at the London Central Employment Tribunal ruled that the BBC had “failed to rebut the presumption of sex discrimination that arose when she proved that her work was like his work”.

Ms Ahmed was paid £465 per episode of her programme, while Mr Vine received £3,000 for his.

In a statement last year, she said: “On the back of my BBC ID card are written the BBC values, which include, ‘We respect each other and celebrate our diversity,’ and, ‘We take pride in delivering quality and value for money’

“I just ask why the BBC thinks I am worth only one-sixth of the value of the work of a man for doing a very similar job.”

A panel of three judges found that both programmes were 15 minutes long, had a magazine format and only differed in that Newswatch restricted its discussion of viewers’ comments to news output, rather than general programming.

“They were minor differences and, more importantly, had no impact on the work that the two presenters did, or the skills and experience required to present the programmes,” Judge Harjit Grewal and the panel members Mr S Godecharle and Mr P Secher wrote.

The panel rejected the BBC’s argument that there was more pressure on Mr Vine because he was presenting a programme that well-known figures, such as Terry Wogan, had previously fronted.

Read more

What is the gender pay gap and how is it different from equal pay?

“We do not accept that Mr Vine’s role had any additional responsibility,” the panel said. “It certainly was no greater than the responsibility of the presenter of Newswatch, having regard to the circumstances which led to the creation of Newswatch.”

Newswatch was launched in the wake of the Hutton inquiry, which investigated the circumstances surrounding the death of the UN weapons inspector David Kelly.

Following her victory, Ms Ahmed said: ”No woman wants to have to take action against their own employer. I’m now looking forward to continuing to do my job, to report on stories and not being one.’’

BBC FAILS TO APOLOGIZE, REALLY 
A BBC spokesperson said: “Samira Ahmed is an excellent journalist and presenter and we regret that this case ever had to go to tribunal.

“We’re committed to equality and equal pay. Where we’ve found equal pay cases in the past, we’ve put them right. However, for us, this case was never about one person, but the way different types of programmes across the media industry attract different levels of pay.

“We have always believed that the pay of Samira and Jeremy Vine was not determined by their gender. Presenters – female as well as male – had always been paid more on Points of View than Newswatch.

“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.”

Carrie Gracie, the BBC’s former China editor who quit over unequal pay and is now a newsreader, tweeted that she “could not be more proud” of her colleague, adding: “I hope your victory gives courage to women everywhere to stand up for the value of their work.”

---30---

EDITORIAL
Samira Ahmed’s historic victory over the BBC is a watershed moment for gender equality

The broadcaster’s arguments as to why Jeremy Vine was paid more than Samira Ahmed were rightly dismissed as nonsense. Other employers failing to pay their people properly should consider themselves warned

Sean O'Grady @_seanogrady

The presenter is due some £700,000 in back pay; no doubt other, similar cases will follow

While not quite binding in case law, Samira Ahmed‘s successful equal pay claim against the BBC sets an important precedent, morally and politically. It will make subsequent cases brought under the equalities legislation easier to win, and will radically alter pay structures. It is an historic moment.

Ms Ahmed always had a strong case, legally and morally, and the employment tribunal was right to decide in her favour. It was a straightforward example of unfair discrimination according to the law, and as the judges found, she was grossly underpaid for work of equal value compared with a male comparator, Jeremy Vine.

It did not matter, it seems, that Mr Vine is more famous than Ms Ahmed – the defining characteristic is the nature of the job, not market forces, which, in this area as in others, appear to be working patriarchally.