British Airways steward sacked for asking female colleague if she wanted to join the 'mile-high club' wins £30,000 payout

A British Airways steward who was sacked for asking a female colleague if she wanted to join the 'mile-high club' has won almost £30,000 for unfair dismissal. Charly Mateo, then aged 37, was sacked by the airline in July 2024 after 'disturbing' the cabin crew member on a flight months earlier. An investigation by the airline found that Mr Mateo had 'purposely touched' his colleague's leg while she was on a mid-flight break behind a privacy curtain. The steward, who was based out of Heathrow Airport, was also alleged to have told her 'sexual stories' about two other women.He was later fired before suing the airline for unfair and wrongful dismissal, with an employment tribunal this week finding that BA did not conduct a thorough enough investigation into the allegations. At Reading Employment Tribunal, Mr Mateo was awarded £29,195 despite it being heard that he acted in 'strange behaviour' and 'invaded her privacy'. His bid to be reinstated was, however, lost. The tribunal heard: '[A colleague] reported that when the complainant had finished her break she had looked tired and had said about the conversation with [Mr Mateo], "I was just trying to be nice, but I need to learn how to be blunt with people" and further that the complainant had said she had not wanted to have a conversation with [him] while she was on her break.'[Another colleague] reported to the investigation that she had put her head through the curtain to check on the complainant after [Mr Mateo] had left and that the complainant told her, "He just asked me if I want to be part of the mile-high club."' A former British Airways steward sacked for asking a female colleague if she wanted to 'join the mile-high club' has won almost £30,000 for unfair dismissalThe woman was said to have been left 'upset and emotional' following the interaction, and said she did not want to work with Mr Mateo again. 'I was made to feel extremely uncomfortable, and my privacy was totally invaded,' she told the BA investigation. The tribunal heard: '[BA] had a genuine belief that [Mr Mateo] had made a reference to the "mile-high club" in a conversation with the complainant while she was on a rest break, that he also did purposely touch the complainant's leg while she was on a rest break and that he did tell the complainant stories of a sexual nature regarding two ladies.'[BA] says that it did and it still does concern it that [Mr Mateo] did this whilst he was positioning on a flight (not operating as a member of the crew).' Mr Mateo worked as cabin crew for British Airways between September 2018 and July 2024 when he was fired.Prior to his dismissal he had a clean disciplinary record and had received commendations for good service.He received a basic annual salary of £21,833 as well as duty allowance and bar commission.The tribunal was told that Mr Mateo was reported in March 2024 over his conduct during the flight. Following his suspension in April 2024, he flew to the USA on a tourist visa to be with his wife who was working as a postdoctoral research fellow at New York University.He eventually flew back to the UK in July 2024 following his sacking, before applying to be added to his wife's visa as a dependent. He was later given a work permit.Outlining why BA's dismissal was deemed unfair, Employment Judge Anna Macey said: 'I concluded that the dismissal was substantively unfair because of the failure to conduct a reasonable investigation due to [BA] interviewing [Mr Mateo] before it had taken a full version of the events from the complainant and the lack of in-depth questioning by [BA] of the complainant concerning her allegation that [Mr Mateo] had touched her knee.'Mr Mateo said he wanted to be reinstated to his former position but this was rejected by the tribunal.Judge Macey said: 'I am satisfied that [BA] does have a genuine belief that trust and confidence has irretrievably broken down based on its genuine belief that [Mr Mateo] committed the allegations made by the complainant.'These are serious allegations of harassment of a sexual nature.'[BA] has a genuine and rational belief that [Mr Mateo] committed the allegations and its loss of trust and confidence is sufficient on its own to prevent re-employment because it is not practicable.'I concluded at the liability hearing that [Mr Mateo] had disturbed the complainant while she was on her break behind a privacy curtain to conduct a non-work related conversation with the complainant.'I concluded that this was blameworthy conduct. It was an invasion of the complainant's privacy and I agree that it was strange behaviour.'There is insufficient evidence for me to conclude that [Mr Mateo] would repeat either the allegations [BA] genuinely believes that he committed or the blameworthy conduct that I concluded he had committed.'