The BBC has approached women who are bringing equal pay cases against it to discuss potential settlements, in an apparent attempt to head off a repeat of Samira Ahmed’s employment tribunal in which embarrassing details of the corporation’s inner workings were made public.

Individuals with knowledge of the equal pay cases said some women who were preparing to follow Ahmed and take their cases to tribunal, having exhausted internal BBC processes, were being approached and asked if they would be interested in a settlement.

“They’ve spent huge amount of money telling women they don’t have a claim – but now they’re approaching women as they head to tribunal and offering to make it go away,” said one.

Timeline BBC equal pay timeline Show A backlash begins against the BBC after it publishes details of its most highly paid stars, revealing that only a third of its 96 top earners are women and the top seven are all men. The BBC’s China editor, Carrie Gracie, resigns in protest over the disparity of her pay compared with male foreign editors, such as the North America editor, Jon Sopel, and Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen. Carrie Gracie wins her battle over gender pay inequality, receiving an apology and a payout from the BBC. The BBC admitted Gracie had been told she would be paid in line with the north America editor, Jon Sopel, whose salary is in the £200,000-£250,000 range, but after she accepted the role her pay turned out to be £135,000. A parliamentary report from the digital, culture, media and sport select committee demands an end to a culture of 'invidious, opaque decision-making' on pay. The committee took evidence from 40 BBC staff and the BBC Women campaign group, which represents more than 170 presenters and producers, including household names such as Mishal Husain and Jane Garvey. A former head of product in the BBC’s design and engineering division receives an out-of-court settlement of more than £130,000.

Caroline Barlow filed an employment tribunal claim after finding that 15 men in equivalent roles in her division were paid more than her. The BBC denied Barlow’s allegations, but in May it agreed to an out-of-court settlement on condition that Barlow formally withdrew her claim. The BBC presenter Samira Ahmed launches a landmark equal pay case, claiming she has been paid 85% less than her male equivalent.

Ahmed asks for hundreds of thousands of pounds in back pay for her work on the BBC programme Newswatch, for which she was paid £440 an episode. She argues that her male equivalent is Jeremy Vine, who was paid as much as £3,000 a show for his work on the Points of View programme. The tribunal takes evidence for several days and will return a decision at a later date. The BBC approaches women who are bringing equal pay cases against it to discuss potential settlements, in an apparent attempt to head off a repeat of Samira Ahmed’s employment tribunal.







The cases involve alleged incidences of unequal pay, which is separate to the wider problem of the gender pay gap. Equal pay cases allege that a woman was paid less than a man for doing the same or equivalent work for reasons of gender. At least a dozen long-running cases are understood to be still active, the former BBC China editor Carrie Gracie said in October.

During Ahmed’s landmark case, she argued she was owed almost £700,000 in back pay because of the difference in pay between her £440-an-episode pay for the BBC’s Newswatch and the £3,000 an episode Jeremy Vine received for Points of View. Both are short television programmes of similar length that deal with viewer feedback about BBC output. Ahmed claimed the pay difference was an example of gender discrimination.

The BBC denied the claim, insisting Newswatch was a journalistic programme that attracts a lower fee and requires a different type of presenter to Points of View, which is an entertainment programme. Its lawyer said the higher salary was justified because the show required a host such as Vine with a lighthearted “cheeky” manner who would “often dress up”, citing occasions when he wore a hat.

At the tribunal, in which Ahmed was supported by other female BBC presenters in a show of solidarity, the corporation was left in the uncomfortable position of trying to talk down the importance of its own programming. At one point the BBC’s legal team described the entire BBC News channel – the flagship 24-hour service – as “relatively niche”, angering some of those who work there.

To make matters worse, an unredacted document featuring the names of more than 100 BBC female employees who were supposedly bringing equal pay cases against the corporation was included in the documents made available to journalists reporting on the case.

Both the National Union of Journalists and the BBC blamed each other for the failure to redact the documents, which led to some of those named complaining to the Information Commissioner’s Office and senior BBC bosses phoning those affected to offer their apologies.

There were also embarrassing details about the BBC’s pay negotiations with Vine’s agent, in which he ended up with a deal worth about £1m a year, while Ahmed claimed she had been told by a senior executive the BBC “doesn’t do equal pay” – something the corporation strongly denied.

Ahmed’s tribunal verdict is due early this year, with potentially major consequences for the BBC and those bringing equal pay cases as they await the result of an investigation into the broadcaster’s handling of such cases by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The corporation is already facing pressure to reduce costs and further cuts could be on their way if the new Conservative government presses ahead with plans to decriminalise non-payment of the licence fee.

A BBC spokesperson said the corporation had made significant changes to pay and grading over recent years, resulting in a large number of pay queries that were “mainly addressed through internal processes” and did not result in any changes to individuals’ pay, although “a tiny percentage end up in dispute or tribunal”.

“Our approach to these cases has not changed. We continue to try to engage with our staff to resolve disputes where it is possible and appropriate. However, mindful of our obligations to the licence fee payer, we will robustly defend our position at tribunal if necessary.”