Home » Airlines News of UK » United Kingdom: British Airways Cabin Crew Wins Unfair Dismissal Battle After Heathrow Allegations
Published on
February 24, 2026
Image generated with Ai
In a closely watched employment dispute in the United Kingdom, a dramatic workplace case involving British Airways, Heathrow Airport, and a dismissed cabin crew member has taken a decisive turn. The controversy, which unfolded in London and later moved through both criminal and employment courts, centred on allegations of serious misconduct said to have taken place in a crew rest facility at Heathrow Airport. Although the matter initially led to arrest, prosecution, and dismissal, the legal journey ultimately reshaped the narrative.
The case highlighted the tension between internal corporate investigations and the standards applied in criminal courts across the United Kingdom. It also underscored the procedural obligations placed on major airlines operating in England when handling allegations that could affect both employee reputations and corporate standing. At the heart of the dispute stood Okan Dalkiran, a British Airways cabin crew member who maintained his innocence throughout. After being acquitted in criminal proceedings, he was nevertheless dismissed by the airline. However, an Employment Tribunal in Watford later determined that the dismissal had been unfair, raising broader questions about investigative standards within large organisations operating at Heathrow Airport and across England.
Allegations Inside a Heathrow Crew Rest Facility
The events in question were said to have occurred in August 2023 inside a large open-plan crew bunking room at Heathrow Airport in London. The facility had been designed to allow airline staff to rest between duties, with individual beds separated by partitions covered with blankets to provide a degree of privacy.
It was reported that a female colleague resting in an adjacent bed had heard what she described as a loud clapping noise coming from Mr Dalkiran’s sleeping area. According to her account, sheets had been pulled up to his waist, and it was alleged that he had been looking through the partition in her direction while engaging in inappropriate conduct. The colleague was said to have left the room immediately and informed another crew member outside about what she believed she had witnessed.
Advertisement
Advertisement
When both colleagues returned to the bunking area, Mr Dalkiran was reportedly found asleep. The complainant subsequently moved to a different bed. A message describing the alleged incident was sent to a friend shortly afterward, and the following day the matter was reported to a manager within British Airways. An internal investigation was then initiated in line with company procedures in England.
Arrest and Criminal Proceedings in England
Approximately two weeks later, Mr Dalkiran was arrested at Heathrow Airport. The arrest was carried out in view of colleagues and members of the public within the airport environment. He was subsequently charged with intending to cause alarm and distress.
Advertisement
Advertisement
British Airways informed him that he was accused of breaching dignity at work and engaging in conduct considered prejudicial to the good name of the airline. Concern was also expressed by the company that the visible police presence at Heathrow Airport, particularly involving uniformed officers, could have negatively affected its reputation in the United Kingdom aviation sector.
The criminal case proceeded to Uxbridge Magistrates Court on November 20, 2023. Although British Airways had been notified of the hearing date, no representative was sent to observe proceedings or obtain official documentation from the court.
Advertisement
Advertisement
During the hearing, magistrates were presented with body-worn camera footage and were asked to consider the physical layout and lighting conditions of the crew rest area. The bunking room was described as dimly lit, consistent with its purpose as a sleeping facility. It was noted that blankets covering the partitions would have restricted visibility between beds. Evidence was also considered regarding the presence of other individuals in the room who had neither seen nor heard any misconduct.
Applying the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the magistrates found Mr Dalkiran not guilty. The acquittal formally cleared him of the criminal charge in England.
Disciplinary Action Despite Acquittal
Despite the outcome in Uxbridge Magistrates Court, British Airways continued with its internal disciplinary process. Under employment law in the United Kingdom, employers are permitted to apply the civil standard of proof, which relies on a balance of probabilities rather than the stricter criminal threshold.
The investigating manager concluded that the complainant’s account was credible. Particular weight was given to the fact that she had appeared visibly upset and had sent a message to a friend shortly after the alleged incident. The airline also maintained that the arrest at Heathrow Airport, even though passengers were not present on board the aircraft at the time, could have generated reputational risk within England’s aviation community.
On April 9, 2024, Mr Dalkiran was dismissed from his position at British Airways. Two internal appeals were later conducted, but both upheld the decision to terminate his employment.
Employment Tribunal Review in Watford
The matter was subsequently brought before an Employment Tribunal in Watford, where Employment Judge Sally Cowen examined whether British Airways had acted reasonably in forming its belief that misconduct had occurred.
The tribunal focused not on the criminal acquittal itself, but on whether a fair and balanced investigation had been conducted in accordance with employment standards in the United Kingdom. It was determined that significant deficiencies had been present in the investigative process.
It was observed that considerable reliance had been placed on the complainant’s emotional presentation as an indicator of credibility. The tribunal concluded that visible distress alone could not be treated as sufficient evidence. Furthermore, it was noted that British Airways had not sought detailed clarification from Uxbridge Magistrates Court regarding findings made during the criminal proceedings.
Environmental factors such as lighting conditions and the restricted visibility caused by blanket-covered partitions had not been fully examined within the company’s disciplinary assessment. The tribunal also found that conclusions about reputational harm had not been supported by clear evidence. It was established that no passengers had been on board the aircraft when police approached Mr Dalkiran, that he had not been handcuffed, and that no disruption to customers at Heathrow Airport had been demonstrated.
Judge Sally Cowen determined that the dismissal decision appeared to have been influenced by an assumed belief in guilt rather than a careful and objective review of all available evidence. It was ruled that the belief held by the investigating manager had not been reasonable in the circumstances. The internal appeal process was also found to have failed in correcting these shortcomings.
As a result, the claim of unfair dismissal was upheld. Compensation is scheduled to be determined at a separate remedies hearing in accordance with employment law procedures in England.
Broader Implications for Employers in the United Kingdom
The ruling has drawn attention within the United Kingdom aviation and employment sectors, particularly for organisations operating in high-profile environments such as Heathrow Airport. While employers retain discretion to apply civil standards in disciplinary matters, it has been reinforced that investigations must be thorough, balanced, and grounded in demonstrable evidence.
The case has illustrated the distinction between criminal proceedings and workplace disciplinary actions in England. Although different standards of proof apply, the requirement for a reasonable investigation remains fundamental. The decision in Watford has underscored that emotional impressions, without corroborating evidence, may not be sufficient to justify dismissal.
For British Airways and other airlines operating across the United Kingdom, the outcome serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural fairness, especially when allegations carry serious reputational consequences.
Further developments are expected once the remedies hearing determines the level of compensation to be awarded. The case continues to be followed closely within legal and aviation circles across England and the wider United Kingdom.
