Qantas flight attendant Luke Urso loses appeal against Fair Work Commission ruling

A Qantas flight attendant sacked after getting drunk on peach martinis in New York has lost his appeal against the FWC.

Luke Urso’s hospital stay cost Qantas $20,000. Picture: AFP

A Qantas flight attendant sacked after getting drunk on peach martinis and gins and tonic in a New York bar has lost his appeal against a Fair Work Commission ruling upholding his dismissal.

A Fair Work full bench today dismissed the appeal by Luke Urso who collapsed in a toilet after he said he drank two peach martinis and three gins and tonics at the 230 Fifth Rooftop Bar in New York in 2017.

Mr Urso argued the drinks had been “free poured” by bar staff leading him to consume the equivalent of 14 standard drinks when he only intended to consume five drinks.

He was taken by ambulance to hospital and admitted, recording a blood alcohol reading of 0.187. The hospital stay cost Qantas $20,000.

After being discharged, he told his manager he was too unwell to operate the flight back to Los Angeles later that day. Mr Urso was sacked and subsequently lost his unfair dismissal claim.

Ruling on his appeal today, a Fair Work full bench agreed with Qantas that the evidence by Mr Urso was “implausible and unbelievable”.

The full bench said it was not contested that Mr Urso consumed about 14 standard drinks between 10pm and 11.40pm, and given he drank such a large amount of alcohol in such a short amount of time, it was not surprising he blacked out.

“The proposition that in those circumstances Mr Urso could have a reliable recollection of what occurred and precisely how many drinks he consumed simply cannot be accepted,’’ the full bench said.

The full bench pointed to an initial statement, later withdrawn, by a Qantas flight attendant who was at the bar with Mr Urso. A file note by a Qantas manager said the flight attendant initially said the duo had two peach martinis and “half a dozen gin and tonics”.

The flight attendant later said the manager misheard him and “I would never consume that amount”.

The full bench said the evidence did not sustain Mr Urso’s “innocent explanation” that he only had five drinks and only became intoxicated due to “free pouring”.

“The evidence tends to suggest that he had significantly more than five drinks, in which case “free pouring” loses whatever capacity it had to exonerate him,’’ it said.

“We observe in any event that Mr Urso, who was clearly not a naif concerning the consumption of alcohol, could not seriously have thought that a drink in the nature of a peach martini would only contain one standard nip of alcohol,’’ it said.

The full bench said Mr Urso’s responsibility on July 22, 2017 was to limit his consumption of alcohol to a degree which ensured he would be able to attend for work and safely perform his duties the following afternoon.

“That necessarily required close and continuing attention to the amount of alcohol he was consuming and its effect upon him, since it is notorious that alcohol will operate to progressively diminish personal responsibility and impair a person’s sense of judgment,’’ it said.

“It defies common sense that a person exercising the requisite degree of restraint could put themselves in the position of consuming 14 standard drinks and then passing out in a period of well under two hours.

“That Mr Urso got himself in that condition was, we consider, the result of recklessness and misjudgment on his part.”