Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner.

Key points from the Samira Ahmed equal pay judgment

Jeremy Vine (David Mirzoeff/PA)
Jeremy Vine (David Mirzoeff/PA)

The tribunal that found for Samira Ahmed in her dispute with the BBC dismissed the corporation’s argument that Jeremy Vine was paid more because his show needed a presenter with a “glint in the eye”.

The dispute centred on the fact Ms Ahmed was paid £465 per episode of Newswatch while Mr Vine was paid up to £3,000 for each episode of his Points Of View, work she described as comparable.

The judges dismissed the BBC’s argument that Points Of View required a “cheeky” presenter with a “glint in the eye”.

The judgment said: “It is clear … that the work that the claimant (Ms Ahmed) and Jeremy Vine did in presenting their respective programmes was the same or, if not the same, very similar.

“The respondent argued that the lighter tone of Points Of View and the occasional attempts to be humorous meant that different skills were required to present it.

“The presenter of Points Of View needed to have a ‘glint in the eye’ and to be cheeky.

“We had difficulty in understanding what the respondent meant by a ‘glint in the eye’ and how that translated into a ‘skill’ or ‘experience’ to do a job.

“How does one acquire such a skill or experience?

“In any event, the light-hearted tone and any cheekiness were achieved primarily by the script being written in a particular style.

“The attempts at humour came from the script.”

Samira Ahmed employment tribunal
Samira Ahmed (Yui Mok/PA)

The judgment described the pay disparity between Ms Ahmed and Mr Vine as “striking”.

It said: “The difference in this pay case is striking.

“Jeremy Vine was paid more than six times what the Claimant was paid for doing the same work as her.

“There needs to be clear evidence about what the case of that difference was.”

The BBC’s argument relied on various factors including the profile of the two programmes, the profile of the two presenters and their broadcasting experience.

However, the tribunal held that the BBC had failed to prove that any of those factors explained the difference in pay at any stage.

The judgment said: “We recognise that those decisions were made long ago and that some of the personnel involved in them may no longer be employed by the respondent (the BBC).

“However, those difficulties are easily surmountable if an organisation has transparent pay structures or processes for determining pay and for recording the rationale of its decisions about levels of pay.

“The BBC found itself in difficulties in this case because it did not (and, to an extent, still does not) have a transparent and consistent process for evaluating and determining pay for its on-air talent.”

The judgment said the BBC had “failed to prove that the difference in pay was caused by the difference between the profile and audience recognition of the Claimant and Jeremy Vine”.

During the tribunal the BBC’s legal team said Ms Ahmed was paid the same as her Newswatch predecessor Raymond Snoddy.

The judges ruled that evidence “strongly” indicated that broadcasting experience “was not taken into account in setting the pay for the presenters of Newswatch.

“If It had been the claimant would not have been paid the same as Ray Snoddy who had no broadcasting experience when he was appointed to the role.”

The tribunal therefore found the claim for equal pay between May 2012 and September 2018 succeeded in full.

Already a subscriber? Sign in