British Airways steward wins £30,000 payout after sacking over ‘mile high club’ question

A British Airways steward who was dismissed after asking a female colleague whether she wanted to join the “mile high club” has been awarded nearly £30,000 for unfair dismissal.

Charly Mateo, who was 37 at the time, lost his job in July 2024 after the airline concluded that he had made a cabin crew colleague uncomfortable during a flight several months earlier.

An internal investigation found that Mr Mateo had “purposely touched” the woman’s leg while she was taking a mid-flight break behind a privacy curtain.

He was also accused of telling her “sexual stories” involving two other women. Mr Mateo was based at Heathrow Airport.

After being dismissed, he brought claims against British Airways for unfair and wrongful dismissal. An employment tribunal has now ruled that the airline failed to investigate the allegations thoroughly enough.

Reading Employment Tribunal awarded Mr Mateo £29,195, although it rejected his request to return to his former job. The panel heard that his conduct had been described as “strange” and that he had “invaded her privacy”.

The tribunal heard that one colleague reported the woman appeared tired after her break and said of her conversation with Mr Mateo: “I was just trying to be nice, but I need to learn how to be blunt with people.” She also reportedly said she had not wanted to speak with him while she was taking her break.

Another colleague told the investigation that she had looked through the curtain after Mr Mateo left. The woman allegedly told her: “He just asked me if I want to be part of the mile high club.”

The woman was said to have been “upset and emotional” after the exchange and told colleagues that 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 British Airways investigation.

The tribunal found that British Airways genuinely believed Mr Mateo had referred to the “mile high club” while speaking to the woman during her rest break. The airline also believed he had deliberately touched her leg and shared sexually themed stories about two women.

British Airways maintained that it remained concerned by the alleged conduct, particularly because it had taken place while Mr Mateo was positioning on a flight rather than operating as a crew member.

Mr Mateo worked as cabin crew for British Airways from September 2018 until his dismissal in July 2024.

MORE STORY: Thailand Braces for New Storm as Flood Death Toll Rises to 31

Before the incident, he had a clean disciplinary record and had received commendations for the quality of his service.

His basic annual salary was £21,833, supplemented by a duty allowance and bar commission.

The tribunal heard that the airline received a report about Mr Mateo’s conduct during the flight in March 2024.

He was suspended the following month and then travelled to the United States on a tourist visa to be with his wife, who was working as a postdoctoral research fellow at New York University.

After his dismissal, he returned to the UK in July 2024 and later applied to be added to his wife’s visa as a dependent. He was subsequently granted a work permit.

Employment Judge Anna Macey said the dismissal was substantively unfair because British Airways had not carried out a reasonable investigation. She said the airline interviewed Mr Mateo before obtaining a full account from the complainant and failed to question the woman in sufficient depth about her allegation that he 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.’