London Central employment tribunal held unanimously in favour of Ahmed in a judgment last week, Ahmed v BBC. Judge Harjit Grewal and two panel members found that the two presenting jobs were equal, and the BBC had ‘not shown the difference in pay was because of a material factor which did not involve subjecting the claimant to sex discrimination’.
Newswatch and Points of View were both 15-minute long pre-recorded programmes with a magazine format and presenter-led, Judge Grewal said, and each aired and discussed viewers’ opinions on BBC programmes.
Judge Grewal questioned the BBC’s argument that the Points of View presenter needed to have ‘a glint in the eye’ and to be cheeky, stating: ‘We had difficulty understanding what the respondent meant… and how that translated into a “skill” or “experience” to do a job’… Jeremy Vine read the script from the autocue… If it told him to roll his eyes, he did.’
She also queried the lack of transparency and inconsistency in the BBC’s approach to setting 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.’
Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), which supported Ahmed said: ‘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. 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.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
