British Airways must pay a cabin crew member £29,195.69 after the Reading Employment Tribunal ruled his July 2024 dismissal over sexual harassment allegations was substantively unfair — because the airline's investigation fell short of what a reasonable process required.

Employment judge Anna Macey accepted that BA genuinely believed Mr C Mateo had asked a female colleague if she wanted to join the "mile-high club", deliberately touched her leg and told her sexual stories about two other women. But genuine belief, the tribunal found, cannot substitute for a thorough investigation. The full reasons emerged after a remedy hearing this month, following the initial decision in May.

What went wrong with BA's investigation?

The tribunal identified specific procedural failures that HR teams should treat as a checklist of what not to do:

• BA interviewed Mateo before obtaining a full account of events from the complainant.
• The airline failed to question the complainant in sufficient depth about her allegation that Mateo had touched her knee.

Those failures proved decisive. The tribunal upheld the airline's sincerity but concluded the investigative foundation underpinning its belief was not sufficiently thorough — making the dismissal substantively unfair, not merely procedurally flawed.

What did the tribunal hear about the incident?

The complainant was on a rest break behind a privacy curtain when Mateo approached her and began a non-work-related conversation. A colleague later reported that the complainant had appeared tired and said: "I was just trying to be nice, but I need to learn how to be blunt with people."

Another colleague told BA's investigation she had 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." In her statement to the airline, the complainant said: "I was made to feel extremely uncomfortable, and my privacy was totally invaded." She was upset, emotional and did not want to work with Mateo again.

Judge Macey said it was clear from the complainant's statements and those of colleagues that she had felt uncomfortable, had not wanted the conversation and was concerned about being rostered with Mateo in future.

Why did the tribunal still call Mateo's conduct blameworthy?

The tribunal did not exonerate him. It described his approach to the complainant during her break as "strange behaviour" and an invasion of her privacy, and found that conduct blameworthy. Mateo had worked as cabin crew from 21 September 2018 until his dismissal on 8 July 2024, with no disciplinary warnings and previous commendations for good service.

Those findings shaped the compensation. The tribunal applied a 30% reduction to the compensatory award under the Polkey principle — reflecting the chance he would have been dismissed anyway after a fair process — and found Mateo had contributed to his dismissal by 20%, reducing the basic and compensatory awards for unfair dismissal accordingly.

The £29,195.69 total comprises a £1,924.96 basic award, a £25,024.48 compensatory award and £2,246.25 for wrongful dismissal. BA was also found to have breached Mateo's contract by dismissing him without paying his full notice period.

Was reinstatement granted?

No. The tribunal rejected Mateo's request. Judge Macey said BA held a genuine and rational belief that he had committed serious allegations of sexual harassment, and that trust and confidence had irretrievably broken down. Notably, the tribunal also found insufficient evidence that Mateo would repeat either the alleged conduct or the blameworthy behaviour it had established.

What should employers take from this?

The case is a stark reminder that in UK unfair dismissal law, a reasonable investigation is not a technicality — it is the foundation of a fair dismissal, even where the employer's belief in misconduct is genuine and the underlying conduct is partly corroborated. Interviewing the accused before securing a full, properly probed account from the complainant exposed BA to liability despite the tribunal's sympathy for its position.

Employers handling harassment allegations in safety-critical, roster-based environments like aviation should also note the breakdown-of-trust finding: it defeated reinstatement but did not rescue the dismissal. As tribunal remedy judgments continue to apply Polkey and contributory-fault reductions in misconduct cases, HR teams can expect outcomes that punish both the employee's conduct and the employer's process — a pattern likely to keep investigation quality under scrutiny in 2025 and beyond.