NEWSWATCH presenter Samira Ahmed has won her sex discrimination equal pay claim against the BBC, a judge at the London Central Employment Tribunal has ruled.
In a unanimous judgment, an employment tribunal in London found that Ahmed should have been paid the same as fellow host Jeremy Vine.
Ahmed asked why she was paid £465 per episode of Newswatch while Vine was paid up to £3000 for each episode of Points Of View, work she described as comparable.
Opposing her claim, the BBC argued that the two presenters were not doing similar work.
The corporation said that Newswatch was a "relatively niche" programme which aired on the BBC News channel, while describing Points Of View as "extremely well-known".
Ahmed was seeking nearly £700,000 in back pay and said that she and Vine did similar work, while the BBC rejected the claim and said the work was not comparable.
Following the ruling, Ahmed said in a statement released via the National Union of Journalists (NUJ): "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.
"I'd like to thank my union the NUJ, especially Michelle Stanistreet the general secretary, my legal team Caroline Underhill of Thompsons Solicitors and my barrister Claire Darwin 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."
NUJ general secretary Michelle 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."
She added: "Since the tribunal ended, the NUJ has pressed the BBC to resolve all of our outstanding cases, resulting in numerous positive outcomes, but there is still work to be done. I'd call on the BBC to learn the lessons from this judgment and to work constructively with the NUJ to sort these cases out.
"The joint unions have done a lot of work with the BBC on improving pay structures but there is much more to be done to ensure that genuine equality and transparency on pay becomes the reality for all employees at the BBC.
"This outcome should also be a wake-up call for all employers. Stamping out the scourge of unequal pay at work should be a priority for all organisations – the NUJ will be building on this victory and supporting our members throughout the industry in making pay inequity a thing of the past."
Responding to the decision, the BBC said that Ahmed "is an excellent journalist and presenter, and we regret that this case ever had to go to tribunal".
A statement continued: "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're sorry the tribunal didn't think the BBC provided enough evidence about specific decisions - we weren't able to call people who made decisions as far back as 2008 and have long since left the BBC.
"In the past, our pay framework was not transparent and fair enough, and we have made significant changes to address that; we're glad this satisfied the tribunal that there was sufficient evidence to explain her pay now.
"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."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel