0370 270 6000

Ahmed v BBC – the BBC pay a high price for equal pay

20 January 2020

In the latest of the ongoing equal pay controversies within the BBC, the Employment Tribunal has handed down its judgment in Samira Ahmed case in a decision expected to cost the BBC in the region of £700,000 in back pay.

Ms Ahmed is the presenter of “Newswatch”, a short fifteen minute TV programme designed to allow viewers to discuss and debate their views on BBC News which she was paid £440 per episode. She relied on Jeremy Vine as her comparator, who was paid £3,000 per episode of “Points of View”, a very similar programme which airs views of viewers on all BBC programmes.

Ms Ahmed argued that the work she undertook was the same or broadly similar to that of Mr Vine. The BBC sought to argue that this was not the case for various reasons, including that Points of View was a high profile entertainment programme whilst Newswatch was part of the BBC’s news programme.

The Tribunal agreed with Ms Ahmed, finding that the work was sufficiently similar to allow Ms Ahmed to rely on Mr Vine as a comparator. The length of the programmes was the same, each aired and discussed BBC viewer’s opinions, each read a script form an autocue and both spent very similar amounts of time in the studio per programme.

The burden therefore, shifted to the BBC to show that there was a non-discriminatory reason for the discrepancy in pay. In a judgment certain to send shivers down the spines of BBC senior management, the Tribunal held that it could not. Despite raising various factors that justified the difference in pay, such as the difference in profile between the two programmes, the fact that Mr Vine has a much bigger profile, and that was much more experienced, the BBC produced very little evidence that demonstrated that these factors were taken into account at the time that the pay decisions were made. The burden was therefore not discharged and the claim succeeded.

It is important to note that the Tribunal did not make any positive findings that the BBC had discriminated against Ms Ahmed, just that it could not demonstrate that it had not which is sufficient for an equal pay claim to succeed. Whilst the Tribunal’s judgment is not remarkable from a legal perspective, it serves as a useful reminder of the great dangers of poor or non-existent documentation of pay decisions and places equal pay back into the forefront of the public consciousness.

Related opinions

New mothers suffer a cumulative loss of income of £66,434 over the following decade

Independent think-tank, the Social Market Foundation (“SMF”), has launched a cross-party parliamentary commission on childcare and its implications for mothers.

View blog

New rules for Fit Notes

Where employees are absent from work due to sickness for more than 7 days, they need to provide reasonable medical evidence in respect of that absence for statutory sick pay purposes – this is most frequently satisfied through the provision of a Statement of Fitness for Work, otherwise known as a Fit Note.

View blog

80% hours for 100% pay? That’ll do nicely

As has been widely reported this week, some 3,000 UK workers are taking part in a six month trial to assess the viability of a four-day working week without any reduction in their normal pay.

View blog

Vaccinations in the Workplace: a higher expectation than one may think

There is currently no legislation requiring employees within the UK to have the COVID-19 vaccine. However, a recent Acas survey found that approximately 22% of employers intend to require their new staff to have the COVID-19 vaccination, and 21% would require their existing staff to be vaccinated too.

View blog

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up