A recent tribunal has found that a British Airways cabin crew member, Okan Dalkiran, was unjustly dismissed from his position following allegations of inappropriate behavior. The incident in question occurred in August 2023 when a female colleague accused him of masturbating in a crew rest area at Heathrow Airport.
The accusation arose after both crew members were resting in adjacent beds within the bunking room. The female colleague claimed she heard a “loud clapping sound” emanating from Mr. Dalkiran’s bed and, upon looking over, noticed the sheets drawn up to his waist. She further alleged that Mr. Dalkiran was peering through the bed dividers towards her, prompting her to report the incident.
In the wake of these allegations, Mr. Dalkiran was arrested two weeks later at Heathrow, in full view of passengers. This led to his termination from British Airways. However, upon taking the case to court, he was found not guilty of the charges.
Subsequently, Mr. Dalkiran brought his case before an employment tribunal. The tribunal concluded that his dismissal was unwarranted due to insufficient evidence supporting the allegations against him. This ruling highlights the importance of ensuring that dismissals are based on solid evidence and fair procedures.
Mr Dalkiran was arrested two weeks later in front of customers at Heathrow – and ultimately fired.
However, a criminal court found him not guilty. He has since taken the case to an employment tribunal, which found he had been unfairly dismissed because there was not sufficient evidence to believe the allegation.
Mr Dalkiran and the woman who complained had been staying in a large open-plan bunking room in Heathrow Airport when the incident was said to have occurred.
After spotting Mr Dalkiran allegedly pleasuring himself, the woman left the room and met a colleague just outside the room, and the pair went outside to smoke.
Okan Dalkiran was arrested aboard a flight in August 2023 after a female colleague reported seeing him masturbating
She told her colleague what she had seen and he said he had not seen it. They went back inside and found Mr Dalkiran asleep so she moved beds.
She texted a friend about 10 minutes later telling her what she alleged to have seen, and the next day she reported the incident to a manager and an investigation began.
After being led through the airport in handcuffs, the BA worker was subsequently charged by police with intending to cause alarm and distress.
He was told by his employer that he was being accused of a breach of dignity at work and conduct prejudicial to good name of BA by being arrested in front of customers at Heathrow.
Mr Dalkiran had a meeting at work later that month where he told the investigating manager: ‘I do not know who [X] is, it’s possible it happened there but it wasn’t me.’
He added that he had even been a part of an identity parade – where X had not picked him out.
Mr Dalkiran informed BA that his trial would be at Uxbridge Magistrates on November 20, 2023, but BA did not send anyone to observe or note the hearing.
He was found not guilty, after Magistrates took into account the body-worn camera footage of the location, the lighting, and that the partitions had blankets covering and therefore restricted visibility.
Mr Dalkiran was found not guilty of intending to cause alarm and distress at Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court
They also took into account that there were others in the room who did not see or hear what X said he did.
They gave a not guilty verdict on the basis of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ – whereas BA’s own procedures went by the ‘balance of probabilities’.
The disciplinary manager concluded that she believed X because, ‘what she witnessed had affected her and she had messaged her friend at the time’.
She said that she believed X more than she did Mr Dalkiran ‘based on everything that has been investigated and presented to her’. She concluded that what X said happened did occur.
She also said that being escorted in BA uniform and placed in a police transport ‘would have been likely to draw the attention of customers in a negative light’.
Mr Dalkiran was fired on April 9, 2024, and his two subsequent appeals both upheld his dismissal.
The crew member took his former employer to an Employment Tribunal in Watford, where Employment Judge Sally Cowen said that the investigation had wrongly ‘relied on the fact that X seemed upset’ as evidence.
The claim of unfair dismissal was upheld, with compensation to be set at a later date.
Judge Cowen said: ‘The issue in this case is whether [BA] had reasonable grounds based on a reasonable investigation to determine that [Mr Dalkiran] was guilty of the allegations.
‘They also knew that she had not been believed at the Magistrates court – as [Mr Dalkiran] had told them so. They knew that no one else in the room had heard/seen anything.
‘They knew that the lighting in the room was quite dark and conducive to rest/sleep.
‘Ms Holloway’s [the investigator] outcome letter makes it clear… that she relied on the fact that X seemed to be upset about it. She believed this indicated credibility. This is not sufficient to reason on its own to find that X should be believed.
‘Ms Holloway failed to test the credibility of X’s version of events. She failed to obtain any details from the Magistrates court in order to investigate whether what was being said by [Mr Dalkiran] was accurate.’
The employment judge found that Ms Holloway had not properly tested the evidence before her before accepting it.
She continued: ‘In relation to the allegation of reputational damage, Ms Holloway did not base her conclusion on the evidence before her.
‘She did not mention that there were no passengers on the plane when [Mr Dalkiran] was approached by the police. Nor that he was not handcuffed and led away [from the plane]. Nor the location of where he was searched or put into a police van.
‘The decision on this point appeared to rather lead on from her views about [Mr Dalkiran’s] guilt, rather than looking at the evidence and circumstances.
‘The Tribunal therefore concluded that [Mr Dalkiran] had been unfairly dismissed as the belief of Ms Holloway was not reasonable and her decision was unsafe. The further appeal processes have not rectified those mistakes.’
