BA paid £29,195 for questioning the accused before the complainant's full statement

In March 2024 a British Airways cabin crew member, Charly Mateo, was alleged to have told a female colleague he wanted her to join the 'mile high club' and to have touched her knee while travelling as a positioning passenger; BA dismissed him that July. Mateo claimed unfair dismissal at Reading Employment Tribunal, where Judge Anna Macey accepted BA genuinely believed gross misconduct had occurred and described his behaviour as 'strange' and an 'invasion of privacy'.

BA still lost. The tribunal held the investigation unreasonable because HR interviewed Mateo before obtaining a complete statement from the complainant and failed to probe her allegation about the knee touch in sufficient depth — falling short of the ACAS Code standard tribunals apply. The procedural failure produced a £29,195.69 award even as the judge refused reinstatement and backed the airline on the substance.

£29,195.69 unfair dismissal award; dismissal itself upheld — BA won the misconduct findings but lost on process

HR reversed the investigative order: the accused was questioned before the complainant's full account existed

The knee-touch allegation was not investigated in sufficient depth

The ACAS Code requires employers to investigate fairly and thoroughly from all sides before concluding

Genuine belief in misconduct could not cure an investigation that missed the required process standard

When the process is flawed, being right on the facts doesn't save you — tribunals judge how you investigated as much as what you concluded.

The tribunal awarded £29,195.69 and denied Mateo's reinstatement request, accepting the trust breakdown made return impracticable. The ruling stands as an example that an employer can win the misconduct findings and still pay for an unreasonable investigation.