British Airways Cabin Crew Member Triumphs in Unfair Dismissal Tribunal
A British Airways cabin crew member, who was dismissed following accusations of masturbating near a female colleague, has successfully won his unfair dismissal case at an employment tribunal. The tribunal ruled that the airline's decision to sack him was based on insufficient evidence and an unreasonable investigation.
Allegations and Arrest at Heathrow Airport
Okan Dalkiran was arrested in 2023 while on board an empty aircraft at Heathrow Airport, after a female colleague, referred to as 'X', reported an incident. She alleged that around midnight on August 15, 2023, in an open-plan staff rest centre at Heathrow, she heard a "loud clapping sound" and witnessed Mr Dalkiran masturbating with bedsheets drawn up to his waist.
According to reports, X claimed that Mr Dalkiran had been watching her through gaps in the partitions separating the beds while masturbating. She stated she "froze for 10 seconds" before pretending to search for something and leaving the room. She later disclosed the alleged incident to a colleague during a cigarette break, though the colleague said he had not witnessed anything.
Upon returning indoors, X found Mr Dalkiran sleeping and switched beds. Approximately 10 minutes later, she messaged a friend describing what had occurred and reported the incident to a manager the following day.
Criminal Trial and Acquittal
Two weeks after the alleged incident, Mr Dalkiran was detained aboard an empty aircraft at Heathrow Airport. He was led through the terminal without handcuffs, charged with intentionally exposing himself with intent to cause alarm and distress, and then released.
Following a trial at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court on November 20, 2023, he was acquitted. Magistrates examined CCTV footage, lighting conditions, and noted that partitions had been draped with blankets, limiting visibility. They also observed that no other individuals present in the area witnessed or heard what X claimed.
British Airways Disciplinary Proceedings
Despite his acquittal in court, British Airways proceeded with disciplinary action, operating on the 'balance of probabilities' standard, which is lower than the criminal prosecution's requirement of evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Mr Dalkiran was informed that he had violated workplace dignity standards and brought conduct prejudicial to BA's reputation by being apprehended in front of passengers at Heathrow.
During discussions with the investigating manager, Mr Dalkiran stated, "I do not know who [X] is. It's possible it happened there but it wasn't me." He also pointed out that X had been unable to identify him in an identity parade.
His employment was terminated on April 9, 2024, and two internal appeals upheld the decision. However, the disciplinary manager acknowledged finding X credible because "what she witnessed had affected her and she had messaged her friend at the time." She argued that Mr Dalkiran being escorted in uniform and placed in police transport "would have been likely to draw the attention of customers in a negative light."
Employment Tribunal Ruling
An employment tribunal in Watford subsequently determined that Mr Dalkiran had been unfairly dismissed due to insufficient evidence. Employment Judge Sally Cowen ruled that the investigation had incorrectly "relied on the fact that X seemed upset" as proof and had failed to adequately scrutinise the evidence before accepting it.
Judge Cowen added, "In relation to the allegation of reputational damage... [the investigator] did not mention that there were no passengers on the plane when [Mr Dalkiran] was approached by the police. Nor that he was not handcuffed and led away. Nor the location of where he was searched or put into a police van."
She concluded, "The decision on this point appeared to rather lead on from her views about [Mr Dalkiran's] guilt, rather than looking at the evidence and circumstances. The Tribunal therefore concluded that [Mr Dalkiran] had been unfairly dismissed as the belief of [the investigator] was not reasonable and her decision was unsafe. The further appeal processes have not rectified those mistakes."
Compensation and Aftermath
Compensation for Mr Dalkiran is set to be agreed at a later date. This case highlights the complexities of workplace investigations, particularly when allegations involve serious misconduct but lack corroborative evidence, and underscores the importance of thorough evidence scrutiny in employment disputes.
