[Brekkie]

Absolutely. I'd also much rather they made Studio E a space that could be used on election night with other elements around the newsroom - I think that would give much more of the feeling of the old sets in TV Centre than them now being stuck in the basement in Studio B.

[ALV]

The BBC has concluded its internal review on the treatment of the former NC presenters during the recruitment process, according to Deadline.

deadline.com 

BBC News Channel Presenters Not Promised Jobs, Review Finds – Deadline
A BBC review has concluded that the star presenters of its relaunched news chann…
  Source: deadline.com

[Brekkie]

No surprise they reached that conclusion but regardless of that the optics of it inevitably led to people making different conclusions - and let's be honest in these cases formal investigations very rarely change people's pre-formed opinion.

There are processes and formalities to go through in a hiring process to ensure that legal requirements are met, but it feels quite naive to think that management didn't have a clear idea of the make up of the merged channel from the outset.

[News76]

Now fingers crossed that the endgame has been reached they can get the five benched presenters back on air As soon possible-this dispute has gone on long enough now.

[Keith]

Now fingers crossed that the endgame has been reached they can get the five benched presenters back on air As soon possible-this dispute has gone on long enough now.

If I recall the BBC is/was doing a separate 'review' into whether they had a sufficient number of presenters for the News channel. It was widely seen as a way for the BBC to save face when in the inevitable u-turn occurs. Presumably it also avoids any claims of unfair dismissal from other departed presenters.

Given that one of the original five chosen presenters has now left BBC News it would make it easier to appoint these five to be presenters. If I recall correctly most of the other presenter-reporter roles have yet to be filled because of this dispute. Whilst the presenter roles may cost more I'm guessing it's probably cheaper than paying for freelance presenters, whilst presumably these five have been on full pay whilst working off-screen.

[News76]

If I recall the BBC is/was doing a separate 'review' into whether they had a sufficient number of presenters for the News channel.  It was widely seen as a way for the BBC to save face when in the inevitable u-turn occurs.  Presumably it also avoids any claims of unfair dismissal from other departed presenters.

Given that one of the original five chosen presenters has now left BBC News it would make it easier to appoint these five to be presenters.  If I recall correctly most of the other presenter-reporter roles have yet to be filled because of this dispute.  Whilst the presenter roles may cost more I'm guessing it's probably cheaper than paying for freelance presenters, whilst presumably these five have been on full pay whilst working off-screen.

Rats i'd forgotten that! surely the results of that review also would come as no surprise that yes they do need more presenters regardless of cost, not less.

Either way, let's hope the inevitable u-turn comes sooner rather than later as this has gone on for too long now.

[JamesWorldNews]

I believe 3 of the presenter-reporter roles have been filled.

[harshy]

This was presumably the original plan, I seem to recall pre-launch that there was talk of presenters in the newsroom and, of course, the intention was supposed to be that being in C was temporary while E was refitted. But that plan has clearly either been shelved or delayed.

Probably shelved if they are making even more cuts to bbc news.

[House]

Worth remembering no employment decisions (e.g. reinstatement, redundancy or redeployment) were likely until the review of the original decision had concluded, else they BBC would be in hot water in any subsequent employment tribunal claim for preempting their HR complaints and appeals process. Now that review has concluded, I suspect they’ll be keen to resolve this one way or another very quickly.

That said, it’s a tricky situation. If they reinstate all five at full pay as chief presenters, you potentially invite criticism for doing so without a fair and open recruitment process (given other previous presenters have left the channel entirely after not securing one of the five roles). Do they then get priority over the appointed presenter-correspondents in slots, airtime etc.?

If you appoint them as presenter-correspondents but maintain their legacy salaries, there’s potential for a discrimination claim from the other presenter-correspondents (think along the similar lines of Carrie Gracie and Samira Ahmed’s tribunal wins that they were unlawfully underpaid compared to comparable presenters).

And if the five affected staff members won’t take pay cuts or demotions, as Deadline suggests is the case, it’s either a costly redundancy package with the associated bad PR, or finding the budget and role for them to be redeployed to equivalent positions in the BBC.

No easy answers, I suspect.

[DTV]

And if the five affected staff members won’t take pay cuts or demotions, as Deadline suggests is the case, it’s either a costly redundancy package with the associated bad PR, or finding the budget and role for them to be redeployed to equivalent positions in the BBC.

No easy answers, I suspect.

It doesn't seem especially difficult. Either they'll be appointed as presenter-reporters (with salary raised for others, which'll likely be less than £100k, so meaningless in budgetary terms), they'll create a staff presenter role (there is clearly already a third option (Bundock), but they can also claim they need to revise initial plans for the channel), or they'll be made redundant (will cost a bit, but a drop in the ocean of wider BBC News redundancies).

They won't be promoted to chief presenters, as the BBC has found they were not unlawfully denied the positions and therefore will not be compelled to give them salary-doubling roles or compensation. As ever, the concern over the budgetary impact of presenter salaries is overdone - giving the few already appointed presenter-reporters a few extra k is basically a rounding error in financial terms and likely offset by a reduction in freelance expenditure.