HELD: (1) Although the tribunal had not asked the right question in relation to s.100(1)(c), the employees had been entitled to raise their concerns through union representatives and the defendants were not outside the scope of s.100(1)(c). (2) Under s.100(1)(c) of the 1996 Act, employees were required to "br[ing] to [the] employer's attention" the circumstances that were potentially harmful to health and safety. In this case, the employees did this by taking industrial action. Even with a liberal construction of that phrase, it was not possible to say that taking industrial action was a reasonable means of bringing health and safety concerns to the employer's attention. Therefore, the employees were not covered by s.100(1)(c). (3) The Employment Tribunal was correct to conclude that as the applicants were dismissed for failing to return to work; the reason for their dismissals was that they were taking action pursuant to s.100(1)(c). It was immaterial that the respondent was indifferent to the reason why the applicants were not at work. (4) By virtue of s.237 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, employees taking part in unofficial action could not claim for general unfair dismissal. In the present case, the recognised union tried to repudiate its authorisation of the action. However, as its notice was defective, it was held that its members were taking part in an authorised action. Therefore, the employees belonging to the recognised union could claim for general unfair dismissal (so long as they had the requisite qualifying period of one year). As regards, the employees who were members of the non-recognised union, they were precluded from bringing claims for unfair dismissal as the non-recognised union had not authorised the industrial action (ie they were taking part in an unofficial action). Lastly, the employees who did not belong to a trade union were not caught by the provisions of s.237 and could also bring claims for general unfair dismissal (subject to the qualifying period).
Appeal allowed.

Tom Linden instructed by McDermott, Will & Emery for the appellant. John Law instructed by Jack Thornley & Parners and Jordans for the 2nd-23th respondents. Michael Ford instructed by Rowley Ashworth for the 26th-52nd respondents. Mr Matthews in person. Mr Manning in person. All other respondents were not present and were not represented.
LTL 14/4/2003 (Unreported elsewhere)

Document No. AC0104834