Dismissing strikers

Case 1:The facts

Forty workers were dismissed after refusing to wear work clothing that was damp and without adequate facilities for drying it. They argued that the dismissals were automatically unfair as they had occurred in the context of action over health and safety. They separately argued that at least some of the workers had been taking official industrial action and therefore had the eight-week protection. An employment tribunal found that the health and safety risk to them was not so imminent as to justify a walkout. However, it accepted that the dismissal of some of the workers was unfair, because they had been taking part in official industrial action at the time of their dismissal.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the tribunal ruling. It said that in the absence of a ballot, industrial action couldn't be taken as a reasonable means of bringing health and safety issues to the attention of the employer. The only exception would be where the refusal to work was to do with an imminent risk. However, it also ruled that while one of the unions concerned had repudiated the industrial action, thus turning official action into unofficial action, the repudiation did not take affect until after the dismissals. This meant that at least some workers could pursue unfair dismissal claims.

* Balfour Kilpatrick v Acheson EAT/1412/01