British Airways Crew Member Wins Unfair Dismissal Case Over Masturbation Allegation
A British Airways cabin crew member who was dismissed after being accused of masturbating in a crew rest area has been found to have been unfairly dismissed by an employment tribunal. The tribunal ruled that British Airways did not have sufficient evidence to reasonably believe the allegation against Okan Dalkiran, who was arrested and later found not guilty in a criminal court.
The Incident and Initial Allegations
The case centered on an incident said to have occurred in August 2023 at Heathrow Airport. Mr Dalkiran and a female colleague were sleeping in adjacent beds in a large open-plan bunking room designated as a rest centre for crew members. The woman reported hearing a "loud clapping sound" from Mr Dalkiran's bed and, upon looking over, alleged she saw him with sheets pulled up to his waist, apparently masturbating while peering through bed dividers at her.
After witnessing this, the woman left the room and met a colleague outside, where they went to smoke. She informed her colleague about what she claimed to have seen, though the colleague stated he had not observed anything. Approximately ten minutes later, she sent a text message to a friend detailing the allegation. The following day, she formally reported the incident to a manager, triggering an internal investigation by British Airways.
Arrest and Criminal Proceedings
Two weeks after the alleged incident, Mr Dalkiran was arrested aboard a flight at Heathrow Airport. He was subsequently charged by police with intending to cause alarm and distress. British Airways informed him that he was being accused of breaching workplace dignity policies and conduct prejudicial to the airline's reputation, particularly due to being arrested in front of customers.
At Uxbridge Magistrates' Court in November 2023, Mr Dalkiran was found not guilty of the criminal charge. Magistrates considered several factors in their decision, including body-worn camera footage of the location, the lighting conditions in the room, and the fact that bed partitions were covered with blankets, restricting visibility. They also noted that other individuals present in the room did not report seeing or hearing anything inappropriate. The verdict was based on the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt."
British Airways Disciplinary Process
Despite the not-guilty verdict in criminal court, British Airways proceeded with its internal disciplinary process, which operates on the lower civil standard of "balance of probabilities." The investigating manager, Ms Holloway, concluded that she believed the complainant's account because "what she witnessed had affected her and she had messaged her friend at the time." Ms Holloway stated she found the complainant more credible than Mr Dalkiran based on the investigation materials presented to her.
Mr Dalkiran was dismissed from his position on April 9, 2024. He appealed the decision twice, but both appeals upheld his dismissal. British Airways did not send any representatives to observe the criminal court hearing at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court, despite being informed of the date by Mr Dalkiran.
Employment Tribunal Findings
Mr Dalkiran then took his case to an Employment Tribunal in Watford. Employment Judge Sally Cowen presided over the case and delivered a ruling that strongly criticized British Airways' investigation and decision-making process.
Judge Cowen found that the investigation had wrongly relied on the complainant appearing upset as evidence of credibility, stating: "This is not sufficient to reason on its own to find that X should be believed." She noted that Ms Holloway had failed to properly test the credibility of the complainant's version of events and did not obtain details from the Magistrates court to verify Mr Dalkiran's account.
The tribunal also highlighted that British Airways was aware the complainant had not been believed in the criminal court, that no other individuals in the room reported seeing or hearing anything, and that the lighting in the room was dark and conducive to sleep. Regarding the allegation of reputational damage, Judge Cowen found that Ms Holloway's conclusion was not based on evidence, noting she failed to mention that there were no passengers on the plane when police approached Mr Dalkiran, that he was not handcuffed and led away from the aircraft, and the specific location where he was searched or placed into a police vehicle.
Judge Cowen concluded: "The Tribunal therefore concluded that [Mr Dalkiran] had been unfairly dismissed as the belief of Ms Holloway was not reasonable and her decision was unsafe. The further appeal processes have not rectified those mistakes."
Outcome and Compensation
The Employment Tribunal upheld Mr Dalkiran's claim of unfair dismissal. Compensation will be determined at a later date. This case underscores the importance of thorough and evidence-based investigations in workplace disciplinary matters, particularly when allegations involve serious misconduct claims that have been disproven in criminal proceedings.
