British Airways cabin crew member accused of masturbating in front of female colleague was unfairly dismissed, tribunal rules
A British Airways cabin crew member who was sacked after being accused of masturbating in the crew lounge was unfairly dismissed, a court has ruled.
Okan Dalkıran was arrested on a flight in August 2023 after a female colleague reported seeing him masturbating in the ‘recreational centre’ at Heathrow Airport.
The woman was sleeping in side-by-side double bunk beds when she heard a ‘loud clap’ from Mr Dalkiran’s bed and when she turned over she saw the sheets had been pulled up to her waist.
He claimed that the cabin crew member looked at him through the bed dividers and reported him.
Mr Dalkiran was arrested in front of customers at Heathrow two weeks later and was eventually fired.
However, a criminal court found him not guilty. He has since taken the case to an employment tribunal, which concluded he had been unfairly dismissed as there was insufficient evidence to give credence to the claim.
Mr Dalkiran and the woman who made the complaint were staying in a large, open-plan bunk room at Heathrow Airport when the incident was said to have occurred.
Claiming that Mr Dalkiran had satisfied her, the woman left the room and met a colleague immediately outside.
Okan Dalkıran was arrested on a plane in August 2023 after a female colleague reported seeing him masturbating.
He told his colleague what he saw, but he said he didn’t see it. They entered and found Mr. Dalkiran sleeping, so he shifted the beds.
About 10 minutes later, he texted a friend to describe what he claimed to have seen, and the next day he reported the incident to a manager and an investigation began.
The BA employee was charged with intent to cause alarm and distress by police after being led away in handcuffs through the airport.
His employer told him he was accused of violating his dignity at work because he was arrested in front of customers at Heathrow.
Mr Dalkiran held a meeting at work later that month and told the investigation manager: ‘I don’t know who you are. [X] So it’s possible it was there, but it wasn’t me.’
He even added that he was part of an identity parade where X did not choose him.
Mr Dalkiran informed BA that his hearing would be held at Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court on 20 November 2023, but BA did not send anyone to observe or take notes of the hearing.
He was found not guilty after judges took into account body-worn camera footage of the location, lighting and that the compartments were covered with blankets, thus restricting visibility.
Mr Dalkiran was found not guilty of intent to cause alarm or distress at Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court
They also took into account that there were others in the room who did not see or hear what X was doing.
They returned a verdict of not guilty on the basis of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’; However, BA’s own procedures operated on the ‘balance of probabilities’.
The disciplinary director concluded that she believed X because ‘what she had witnessed had influenced her and she had sent a message to her friend at the time’.
He said he believed in X more than Mr Dalkiran ‘based on everything that had been investigated and presented to him’. He concluded that what X said happened.
He also said that being escorted in BA uniform and put into a police vehicle could ‘draw the attention of customers in a negative way’.
Mr Dalkiran was fired on April 9, 2024, and his dismissal was upheld in his two subsequent appeals.
The crew member took his former employer to an Employment Tribunal in Watford; where Employment Judge Sally Cowen said the investigation mistakenly relied as evidence on “the fact that X appeared upset”.
The unfair dismissal claim was accepted, with compensation to be determined at a later date.
Judge Cowen said: ‘The issue in this case is [BA] has reasonable grounds, based on a reasonable investigation, to determine [Mr Dalkiran] He was found guilty of the allegations.
‘They also knew he wasn’t believed in the Magistrates’ Court – because [Mr Dalkiran] That’s what he told them. They knew no one in the room heard/seen anything.
‘They knew the lighting in the room was quite dark and conducive to rest/sleep.
‘ stewardess [the investigator] The concluding letter makes it clear that he relied on the fact that X seemed upset about it. He believed this showed trustworthiness. This alone is not enough to reason to find that X should be believed.
‘Failed to test the reliability of X’s version of events. He was unable to obtain any details from the Magistrates Court to investigate whether what was said by him was true. [Mr Dalkiran] It was true.”
The labor judge found that the stewardess did not properly test the evidence before her before agreeing.
He continued: ‘As regards the alleged damage to reputation, the stewardess did not base her conclusion on the evidence before her.
‘He did not mention that there were no passengers on the plane’ [Mr Dalkiran] The police approached. Nor was he handcuffed and taken away [from the plane]. It was not stated where he was searched or put in the police van.
‘The decision at this point seemed to be based more on his views on the matter. [Mr Dalkiran’s] Guilt instead of looking at the evidence and circumstances.
‘The court therefore concluded: [Mr Dalkiran] It was unjustly rejected on the grounds that the stewardess’ belief was unreasonable and her judgment unsafe. ‘Subsequent appeal processes did not correct these errors.’
