A British Airways (BA) worker has won almost £30,000 (over €35,000) for unfair dismissal after making unsolicited remarks of a sexual nature to a colleague, despite a judge agreeing with the airline that his conduct was “blameworthy.”
Charly Mateo, aged 37 and working out of London Heathrow at the time of the incident, was fired by British Airways after accusations that he “disturbed” a member of cabin crew while she was on her break behind a privacy curtain, made inappropriate comments to her about joining the “mile high club” (a British language euphemism for having sex on a plane), touched her leg without consent, and recounted sexual anecdotes.
The flight attendant who accused Mateo told another colleague about his behaviour immediately after it is alleged to have happened, as well as telling a BA probe that it was an invasion of privacy that had left her “upset and emotional” and “uncomfortable” and unwilling to work with him again. Her confidant confirmed the report to an investigation, leading to Mateo’s sacking in July 2024.
As the summer holidays begin, millions of people will be heading off on a well-earned break. But while many of us are switching off, aviation workers are working around the clock to keep air travel moving ✈️ Our members have been speaking to The Guardian about the shocking abuse they face on the job – from sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour towards cabin crew to threats and intimidation directed at ground staff. No one should have to accept abuse as "part of the job". Every worker deserves to be treated with respect, to feel safe at work, and to return home at the end of their shift without fear.
— Unite the union: join a union (@unitetheunion) July 22, 2026
Mateo subsequently sued BA for unfair and wrongful dismissal, a complaint that has now been upheld by an employment tribunal judge, who awarded him £29,195.69 in compensation. The amount involved reflects Mateo’s basic yearly salary of £21,833, plus duty allowance and commission on bar sales.
The judge concluded that his dismissal was “substantively unfair” because of the airline’s failure to carry out a “reasonable investigation.” BA interviewed Mateo “before it had taken a full version of the events from the complainant” and failed to pursue any “in-depth questioning” of the complaint, she said, particularly about the allegation that Mateo had touched a colleague’s knee.
Mateo did not, however, win the right to be re-employed by the airline, with the judge agreeing that, after six years of employment with BA and a clean disciplinary record, Mateo’s behaviour and disturbance of the flight attendant behind the curtain had been “strange.” She went on to declare she was “satisfied” that the airline has “a genuine belief that trust and confidence has irretrievably broken down based on its genuine belief” that Mateo had committed behaviour described. She added that the allegations of harassment of a sexual nature were “serious.”
While the judge found there was insufficient evidence to prove whether Mateo would repeat the behaviour described, she concluded that Mateo had indeed committed “blameworthy conduct.”
The case has attracted media attention in part due to ongoing culture wars over workplace behaviour, as well as commercial aviation’s historic cultural reputation for workplace flirtation, driven by long hours, working in confined spaces, and frequent overnight layovers. The conclusion of this case appears to be a balanced finding that makes clear Mateo’s probable behaviour is unacceptable in the modern professional workplace, and that workers have the right to a thorough investigation before losing their employment.
