240 electricians were employed by B at a large construction site. The site was extremely wet and there were insufficient facilities for employees to dry their clothes. On 4 April 2000, it rained very heavily. This produced wide areas of standing water on the marshy ground around the site. The temperature was very low. The electricians delegated two colleagues to approach management with their concerns about their working conditions and to ask for the afternoon off, to dry out. The management dismissed their requests out of hand, taking the view that the men were attempting to get money without working. The electricians then left the site and did not start work for two days. When they returned, they were given letters of dismissal. The applicants, who were some of the electricians, started proceedings for unfair dismissal. Their claims were based on s.100(1)(c) of the 1986 Act, which states, in summary, that an employee is unfairly dismissed if the reason for the dismissal is that the employee brought to his employer’s attention, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with his work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety. Alternatively, it was argued on behalf of the applicants that the dismissals had been automatically unfair under s.100(1)(d), where the reason for dismissal is that, in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he could not reasonably have been expected to avert, he left his place of work.