A former British Airways steward who was dismissed after asking a female colleague whether she wanted to join the “mile-high club” has been awarded almost £30,000 after winning an unfair dismissal claim.
Charly Mateo, who was 37 at the time, was sacked by the airline in July 2024 over an incident that had allegedly left a fellow cabin crew member feeling “disturbed” several months earlier.
A British Airways investigation concluded that Mr Mateo had deliberately touched the woman’s leg while she was taking a mid-flight break behind a privacy curtain.
The Heathrow-based steward was also accused of telling her sexually explicit stories involving two other women.
He was subsequently dismissed and brought claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal. However, a tribunal has ruled that British Airways failed to investigate the allegations thoroughly enough.
Reading Employment Tribunal awarded Mr Mateo £29,195, although it heard that his conduct had been described as “strange” and that he had “invaded her privacy”. His request to return to his job was rejected.
The tribunal heard that one colleague reported the cabin crew member looked tired after ending her break. She reportedly 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 said she had not wanted to speak with him while she was on her break.
Another colleague told the investigation that she had looked through the curtain to check on the woman after Mr Mateo left. The cabin crew member allegedly told her: “He just asked me if I want to be part of the mile-high club.”
A former British Airways steward dismissed after asking a female colleague if she wanted to join the “mile-high club” has won almost £30,000 in an unfair dismissal case
The woman was said to have been left “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 heard that British Airways genuinely believed Mr Mateo had referred to the “mile-high club” while speaking to the complainant during her rest break. The airline also believed he had deliberately touched her leg and had told her sexually themed stories about two women.
British Airways said it remained concerned that the alleged conduct had taken place while Mr Mateo was positioning on a flight, despite not operating as a member of the crew.
Mr Mateo worked for British Airways as cabin crew from September 2018 until his dismissal in July 2024.
DISCOVER MORE: Jeremy Strong Responds After Method Acting Left Co-Stars ‘Uncomfortable’
Before the allegations, he had no disciplinary record and had received commendations for providing good service.
His basic annual salary was £21,833, supplemented by a duty allowance and bar commission.
The tribunal was told that concerns about his conduct during the flight were reported to British Airways in March 2024.
After being suspended in April 2024, Mr Mateo travelled to the United States on a tourist visa to stay with his wife, who was working as a postdoctoral research fellow at New York University.
He returned to the UK in July 2024 after losing his job, then applied to join his wife’s visa as a dependent. He was later granted a work permit.
Employment Judge Anna Macey said British Airways’ dismissal decision was substantively unfair because the airline had not carried out a reasonable investigation. She said BA interviewed Mr Mateo before obtaining a full account from the complainant and failed to question her 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.’