John Pio v Strautmann Hopkins [2026] NZERA 164

A report-style summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

What happened

• Against Hopkins Farming Group Limited (HFG) Mr Pio applies for penalties for acting to delay or obstruct the Authority's process by actions including steps to remove SHL from the companies register.
• SHL says Mr Pio's dismissal for redundancy was substantively and procedurally fair and there are no grounds for an award of penalties.
• HFG opposes being a party to this matter. It says it is not a party to the employment relationship and denies acting in a manner to obstruct the Authority's investigation. The Authority's investigation
• This matter has been before the Authority for some time. Three scheduled investigation meetings have been adjourned and a preliminary matter determined.1
• The Authority has received evidence from Mr Pio, Peter McCarthy a director of HFG, Max Sturt a former director of SHL and Ian Hopkins, a director and shareholder of Strautmann NZ Limited and Strautmann Hopkins (20023) Limited
• As permitted by s 174E of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) this determination has stated findings of fact and law, expressed conclusions on issues necessary to dispose of the matter and specified orders made. It has not recorded all evidence and...
• In considering a dismissal for redundancy the Authority must apply the test for justification set out at section 103A of the Act. The Authority must assess the reasons given to the employee by the employer including the business reasons and decide, on an...
• In reaching its decision on the scope of the application of s103A of the Act to redundancy dismissals, the Court of Appeal placed emphasis on the Act's legislative context. In particular, the Court referred to the strengthening in 2004 of the provisions...

Key findings and reasoning

• John Pio was employed by Strautmann Hopkins Limited (SHL) from 1 March 2020 as a regional sales manager until his employment ended by way of redundancy on 26 April 2023. He says his dismissal was unjustified for which he seeks compensatory remedies. He...
• The issues identified for investigation and determination are whether: i. Was Mr Pio unjustifiably dismissed for redundancy? 1 John Pio v Strautmann Hopkins Limited & Hopkins Farming Group Limited [2025] NZERA 261. ii. If so, is he entitled to remedies of:...
• A fair and reasonable employer is expected to comply with its statutory obligations which include the good faith obligations. Failure by an employer to comply with these obligations may fundamentally undermine its ability to justify a dismissal or other...
• In addition, a fair and reasonable employer is expected to comply with its statutory obligations which include the good faith obligations which include at s 4(1A)(b): The duty of good faith in subsection (1)- (a)... 3 Grace Team Accounting Ltd v Brake...
• Further, in accessing the fairness and reasonableness of the employer's actions in a s 103A setting focus is required on the employment relationship overall. In FMV v TZB the Supreme Court discussed this emphasis in the Act and its relationship with the...
• At 8.20am on Wednesday 26 April Mr McCarthy sent Mr Pio a text message that he wanted to meet him in Cambridge any time after 10am and that Mr Pio was to bring all company property with him including his work vehicle to hand over. At 12.30pm that day Ms...
• SHL was responsible for and wholly in control of the process which has resulted in Mr Pio's dismissal. The deficiencies outlined above are not minor or technical and mean SHL cannot demonstrate it acted fairly and reasonably in dismissing Mr Pio. On the...
• Mr Pio has established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal. He is entitled to a consideration of the remedies sought. 12 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 3(a). 13 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 4(1A)(c). Reimbursement of lost wages
• Mr Pio seeks an award of at least 6 months lost wages and up to 12 months. His search for employment has been protracted and extensive. Factors known to the parties including Mr Pio's age and qualification level and the limited opportunities in New Zealand...

Orders and payments mentioned

• payments: $18,000

Note: amounts are extracted from the orders wording. Check the PDF for full context (gross/net, tax, contribution, and deadlines).

Practical takeaways

• ERA dismissal cases are assessed using s 103A (what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances).
• For redundancy, genuineness and process are separate: consultation and redeployment assessment remain critical.
• Always read the orders section for the authoritative list of payments, deadlines, and compliance steps.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the Open button above.

Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.