Equal pay for equal work

legal updates

Jeremy Vine was paid almost seven times more than Samira Ahmed for what the Tribunal concluded were ‘minor differences’ in their work.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

Samira Ahmed won her equal pay claim against the BBC when the Employment Tribunal unanimously agreed that Ahmed’s work presenting the BBC programme Newswatch, was equal to that of Jeremy Vine as presenter of Points of View.

Jeremy Vine was paid almost seven times more than Samira Ahmed for what the Tribunal concluded were ‘minor differences’ in their work.  The BBC’s argument the difference was justified as Jeremy Vine has the ‘glint in his eye’, required for the presentation of Points Of View, fell on deaf ears when the ET would not accept that a ‘glint in the eye’ is a skill or experience.  

The Tribunal found Samira Ahmed’s work to be of equal value after the BBC failed to show any valid reason for the difference in pay and failed to prove any sex discrimination was not involved.  

In considering whether employee’s work is equal, the focus should be on what each of them does and if there are any differences between what they do, the nature and extent of those differences and the frequency with which they occur.  This can include responsibility.  A number of factors should be taken into account to determine whether the work performed is of equal value, such as the nature of the activities, the training required to carry them out and the working conditions in which the work is carried out.  The rebuttable presumption of sex discrimination arises when the gender-based comparison shows that a woman doing work equivalent or of equal value to that of a man is being paid or treated less favourably.  The burden is upon the employer to prove the difference is not the ‘difference of sex’. 

The gender pay gap has been news for some time, since changes to the Equality Act came into force in April 2017, and companies with more than 250 employees have been legally required to report their gender pay gap figures by the end of the financial year.  The gender pay gap is the average difference between hourly wages for men and women and is caused by numerous things, such as having fewer women in senior or more high-earning roles or more women working part-time.  The Gender Pay gap and Equal Pay are not the same thing.  Equal pay has been a legal requirement since the Equal Pay Act was introduced in 1970, but unlawful sex discrimination in pay remains common, as this landmark case has shown. 

The National Union of Journalists say the outcome of the Samira Ahmed case should be a ‘wake-up call’ to all employers and that stamping out the scourge of unequal pay at work should be a priority of all employers. 

However, many employers still fail to provide transparency about their pay structures and pay awards, with the TUC reporting this week that one in five workers are contractually banned from revealing their pay.  Pay secrecy clauses and a lack of pay transparency can lead to a lack of trust and a suspicion amongst employees that there is in fact, no rationale behind pay differences within an organisation.

InvolutionSTAFF UNIFORM | PROMOTIONAL WEAR | MERCHANDISE | BUSINESS GIFTS

Leading experts in print, promotional clothing, staff uniforms, branded merchandise and PPE. Involution is your brand partner for promotional marketing and workwear, a one-stop-shop for your branded marketing needs for any business size and industry.

Polly DaviesLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Change management

The consequences of failing to manage workplace change effectively can increase employee resistance and deplete employee engagement.

Can a notice to terminate employment be withdrawn?

An employee’s refusal to agree to treat the notice as ineffective and to continue employment may have serious consequences.

Claims of harassment related to age and sex

Mr King was found to have crossed the line by making reference to Mr Finn’s appearance which had created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, and/or offensive environment.

ACAS conciliation

Employers can also contact ACAS directly for assistance in mediation with a former employee.

The primary purpose of a contract of apprenticeship is training

If you take on an apprentice it is vital you have an apprenticeship agreement in place which is a contract of service.

Pandemic impact on annual leave entitlement

The change in March 2020 allowed for four weeks of annual leave to be carried over. So, as a reminder, any carried over leave must be used in 2022!

Right to work – adjusted checks extended to 30 September 2022

Job applicants and existing employees can send scanned documents or a photo of documents for checks using email or a mobile app, rather than sending originals.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.