Africana55 Radio 
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Membership today.
Already a member? Log in
A British Airways flight attendant who was sacked for allegedly asking a colleague if she wanted to join the "mile high club" has won nearly £30,000 for unfair dismissal.
Charly Mateo was fired following accusations that he "disturbed" a cabin crew member behind a privacy curtain during her mid-flight break and made a lewd remark, an employment tribunal heard.
Mr Mateo, who was based out of London’s Heathrow Airport, was also alleged to have touched the flight attendant's leg and shared "sexual stories" about two women.
BA fired Mr Mateo, who was aged 37 at the time, but he subsequently sued the airline for unfair and wrongful dismissal.
An employment tribunal judge has now concluded that Mr Mateo engaged in "strange behaviour" and invaded his colleague’s privacy, but said that BA had failed to perform a thorough enough investigation into the allegations.
At Reading Employment Tribunal in Berkshire, he was awarded £29,195.69 in compensation but lost his bid to be reinstated.
Mr Mateo was employed as cabin crew for British Airways between September 2018 and July 2024.
Before his dismissal, he maintained a clean disciplinary record and received commendations for good service. He received a basic annual salary of £21,833 alongside duty allowance and bar commission.
The tribunal was informed that Mr Mateo was reported in March 2024 over his conduct during a flight. On that occasion, he was not working as a member of the crew but was travelling on the aircraft as he was "positioning on a flight" to begin duty at another location.
It was heard that he "disturbed" the BA air stewardess while she was behind a privacy curtain.
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'."
Mr Mateo was also alleged to have "purposely touched the flight attendant's leg" and "told her stories of a sexual nature regarding two ladies".
She was left "upset and emotional" and said that she did not want to work with him again.
She told the BA investigation: “I was made to feel extremely uncomfortable, and my privacy was totally invaded.”
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 sexualnature 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)."
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.
After he was sacked in July 2024, he returned to the UK to apply to be added to his wife's visa as a dependent. He was later given a work permit.
At Reading Employment Tribunal, it was ruled that BA did not carry out a thorough enough investigation.
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 that 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."