Leadership1 publisher3 min readPublished
British Airways loses a tribunal case over the order and depth of its misconduct inquiry
British Airways must pay sacked cabin crew member C Mateo £29,195.69 after a tribunal found its misconduct investigation fell short. The judge refused to reinstate him, so the flawed inquiry cost BA money and Mateo stays out of the job.
The Board Room · Leadership desk
Drafted by a language model from the sources cited here and checked against its claim ledger before publication. How we use AISend a correction
What happened
- BA interviewed Mateo before it had obtained a full account of events from the complainant.
- The airline did not question the complainant in enough depth about her allegation that Mateo had touched her knee.
- The complainant was on a rest break behind a privacy curtain when Mateo approached her and started a conversation unrelated to work.
- Mateo worked as cabin crew from 21 September 2018 to 8 July 2024, with no disciplinary warnings and past commendations for good service.
Compiled by The Board RoomSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- constraint BA's genuine belief in serious harassment allegations did not save the dismissal, so an employer cannot rely on how grave a charge is to cover gaps in the inquiry behind it.
- decision HR teams deciding the order of a harassment inquiry now face a ruling that counted interviewing the accused before taking the complainant's full account against the employer.
- cost BA's bill was kept down by discounts based on the tribunal's own findings about Mateo's conduct, and an employer cannot count on those discounts when it decides how far to investigate.
The ruling splits what BA believed from how it reached that belief. The Reading Employment Tribunal found that the airline genuinely believed Mateo had made the "mile-high club" comment, deliberately touched the colleague's leg and told her sexual stories about two other women [4]. Employment judge Anna Macey still found the dismissal substantively unfair: BA had not investigated reasonably before it decided to dismiss him [5].
BA's failings were in the order and depth of its questioning. It did take accounts from people other than the two involved. One colleague told its investigation that she checked on the complainant after Mateo left and was told: "He just asked me if I want to be part of the mile-high club." [9] As reported, the judgment does not fault BA for leaving a witness out [1].
The seriousness of the allegations did not lower the bar, and the tribunal did not doubt the complainant's distress. In her statement to BA she said: "I was made to feel extremely uncomfortable, and my privacy was totally invaded." [10] Judge Macey said the complainant's own statements, and her colleagues', made it clear that she had been uncomfortable, that the conversation was unwanted and that she was worried about being rostered with Mateo again [18].
Gravity did count when the tribunal decided the remedy. Judge Macey said BA genuinely and rationally believed the serious allegations of sexual harassment against Mateo, and that trust and confidence had broken down beyond repair [13]. Those findings ruled out reinstatement, even though the tribunal found insufficient evidence that he would repeat the conduct [13][14].
Seen from BA's side, the airline lost on liability, but reinstatement was refused and its bill came to under £30,000 [15]. The total is a £1,924.96 basic award, a £25,024.48 compensatory award and £2,246.25 for wrongful dismissal [15]. The compensatory award was cut by 30% under the Polkey principle, and a 20% contribution finding applied to both unfair dismissal awards [16]. If the two cuts were applied one after the other, the compensatory award is 56% of what it would have been without them [19].
That defence depends on findings BA did not control. The reductions were made to reflect the circumstances of the case and the tribunal's findings [16]. Among those findings: Mateo's approach during the complainant's break was blameworthy, "strange behaviour" and an invasion of her privacy [12]. The tribunal judged BA's investigation record much later. The case was first decided in May, and the full reasons came only after a remedy hearing [3].
The £2,246.25 comes from a separate finding. BA summarily dismissed Mateo [2], and the tribunal found it breached his contract by doing so without his full notice period [17].
What to watch
- A BA appeal against the liability finding would test how much weight interview order and depth of questioning can carry on their own.
- Whether later tribunals cite this decision where an employer interviewed the accused before taking a complainant's full account.
- Any change BA makes to how it investigates harassment complaints among cabin crew after the ruling.