Claimant v Zotefoams plc
Outcome
Individual claims
This is an interim relief application under s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant has a 'pretty good chance' of establishing automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing. She raised protected disclosures about payroll compliance breaches affecting maternity pay and national minimum wage. The tribunal found the timing and nature of the redundancy exercise (made in the same month as £100,000+ reimbursements, with no opportunity for claimant to apply for the new Payroll Manager role) gave her claim a high likelihood of success. The substantive claim has not yet been determined.
Claimant raised concerns about unlawful salary deductions from women on statutory maternity pay and breaches of national minimum wage legislation affecting factory workers. The tribunal found these appeared to be clear protected disclosures made in the public interest, leading to over £100,000 in reimbursements. The tribunal concluded there was a strong likelihood these would be found to be protected disclosures under s.43A ERA 1996.
Facts
Ms Turlo was employed as a Payroll Administrator from November 2022. She identified significant compliance breaches including unlawful salary deductions from women on statutory maternity pay and national minimum wage violations. After she raised these concerns, which led to over £100,000 in reimbursements to factory workers, she was made redundant in September 2025 ostensibly due to restructuring. A new Payroll Manager was appointed the day after her role was placed at risk, and she was given no opportunity to apply for the role despite being on a Level 5 apprenticeship course to qualify as a payroll manager.
Decision
The tribunal granted interim relief and ordered reinstatement. The judge found Ms Turlo had a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding in her automatic unfair dismissal claim. The disclosures appeared to be protected disclosures made in the public interest, and the timing and nature of the redundancy exercise (immediately after reimbursements, with no opportunity to apply for the new role) made it likely the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures rather than genuine redundancy.
Practical note
Interim relief can succeed where an employer restructures immediately after costly remediation of whistleblowing concerns, particularly where the employee was being trained for the very role they are then excluded from applying for.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2309393/2025
- Decision date
- 24 November 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Zotefoams plc
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Payroll Administrator
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep