ClickCease

PIACUN v COOPER NO 1 LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 32 - The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. She says that Cooper terminated her employment on 15 June 2023 without paid notice.


PIACUN v COOPER NO 1 LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 32

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 32
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: PIACUN v COOPER NO 1 LIMITED and Anor
  • Authority member: Antoinette Baker
  • Hearing date: 1 October 2024
  • Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, She says that Cooper terminated her employment on 15 June 2023 without paid notice. After that, The Authority's Investigation Process [7] I received briefs of evidence prior to the investigation meeting from Ms Piacun and for Cooper, Ms Pugh, a human resources consultant for Cooper who was employed around the time that Cooper sold its business and Ms Piacun was dismissed. Later, Did Cooper dismiss Ms Piacun on 15 June 2023 without notice? The determination records that The Authority accepted Cooper terminated Ms Piacun from her employment on 15 June 2023 and that she did not receive any paid notice. The Authority notes that On 12 June 2023, her direct report manager emailed Ms Piacun asking her to meet him: Hi Mandy You may have heard that Rick and Dean2 have entered into an agreement to sell the company to [purchaser name]. Ultimately, Ms Piacun's final payslip shows she was paid $11,076.00 gross holiday pay less a nett figure of 10 days of holiday pay previously paid. 5 [20] Based on the above The Authority found that Ms Piacun was terminated from her employment by Cooper on 15 June 2023 and without any notice period paid. In the end, That quite clearly leaves this as a situation where Cooper unilaterally terminated Ms Piacun's employment without notice on 15 June 2023 through Ms Piacun's direct report manager.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
  • The parties are PIACUN (employee) and COOPER NO 1 LIMITED and Anor (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 1 October 2024.
  • Authority member: Antoinette Baker.

Key events described

  • She says that Cooper terminated her employment on 15 June 2023 without paid notice.
  • The Authority's Investigation Process [7] I received briefs of evidence prior to the investigation meeting from Ms Piacun and for Cooper, Ms Pugh, a human resources consultant for Cooper who was employed around the time that Cooper sold its business and Ms Piacun was dismissed.
  • Did Cooper dismiss Ms Piacun on 15 June 2023 without notice?
  • The Authority accepted Cooper terminated Ms Piacun from her employment on 15 June 2023 and that she did not receive any paid notice.
  • On 12 June 2023, her direct report manager emailed Ms Piacun asking her to meet him: Hi Mandy You may have heard that Rick and Dean2 have entered into an agreement to sell the company to [purchaser name].
  • Ms Piacun's final payslip shows she was paid $11,076.00 gross holiday pay less a nett figure of 10 days of holiday pay previously paid. 5 [20] Based on the above The Authority found that Ms Piacun was terminated from her employment by Cooper on 15 June 2023 and without any notice period paid.
  • That quite clearly leaves this as a situation where Cooper unilaterally terminated Ms Piacun's employment without notice on 15 June 2023 through Ms Piacun's direct report manager.
  • The reason is evidenced by the above referred Head of Finance's email to say that Ms Piacun had been 'made redundant from our end' because she had been on ACC for two years.
  • I do not consider that the process of not consulting with Ms Piacun before dismissing her was minor.
  • The employee who had been on parental leave and had even less communication, was awarded $8,000.00.12 The Authority found here I have considerably more evidence from Ms Piacun about the effect on her which is also supported by the circumstances that I have considered above.
  • Standing back from the above I order Cooper to pay to Ms Piacun $18,000.00 compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) for the 'humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings' likely suffered by Ms Piacun in relation to the unjustified dismissal.

Decision markers

  • Ms Piacun's final payslip shows she was paid $11,076.00 gross holiday pay less a nett figure of 10 days of holiday pay previously paid. 5 [20] Based on the above The Authority found that Ms Piacun was terminated from her employment by Cooper on 15 June 2023 and without any notice period paid.
  • The employee who had been on parental leave and had even less communication, was awarded $8,000.00.12 The Authority found here I have considerably more evidence from Ms Piacun about the effect on her which is also supported by the circumstances that I have considered above.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $18,000.00
  • Costs: Costs awarded.

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

  • Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
  • Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

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.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases, Redundancy
Lita Beattie v Matthew Roberts [2026] NZERA 450 - employee status, unpaid wages and constructive dismissal

Lita Beattie worked long hours as head chef for Matthew Roberts at Matt's Kitchen but was paid sporadically, sometimes in cash, and often not at all. Mr Roberts argued the arrangement was a contracting or business-support arrangement, partly connected with an alleged debt. The ERA found Ms Beattie was an employee. The Flexi Wage subsidy discussions, the intended employment agreement, her integration into the business, the absence of invoices, and the fact she worked under Mr Roberts' direction all pointed to employment. The failure to pay wages was a serious breach that foreseeably compelled her resignation, so the resignation was a constructive dismissal. Mr Roberts was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation, $14,040 lost wages, $23,050 gross wage arrears, $1,844 annual holiday arrears, PAYE and KiwiSaver accounting, and interest on wage and holiday arrears...

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham v Queenstown Nursery Limited [2026] NZERA 446 - casual employment, fixed assignment and unjustified dismissal

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham were working holiday visa holders engaged by Queenstown Nursery Limited as casual nursery assistants. The employer argued their work was offered only day by day and could simply stop being offered. The ERA disagreed. An email promising Monday to Wednesday work for at least the next three weeks created an assignment extending to 23 April 2025. When QNL ended the work on 15 April, it said the reason was weather, but later acknowledged the applicants had been selected because they were considered less efficient. The Authority found no fair process, no evidence of substantive justification, and a breach of good faith. Each applicant was awarded $848 gross for four lost working days, including Easter Monday as an otherwise working day, and $2,000 compensation...

Sukhmanpreet Singh v JIT Limited, Davinder Pal and Harmanpreet Kaur Sandhu [2026] NZERA 453 - forced leave request, unjustified suspension and dismissal

JIT Limited dismissed Sukhmanpreet Singh after an argument with a director about annual leave. The ERA found the employer had unlawfully pressured him to write an annual-leave request, then suspended him by cancelling shifts without proper process, and later dismissed him without a fair investigation or fair opportunity to answer the full allegations. A pushing allegation was not established. The Authority also found wage and public-holiday arrears, record-keeping failures, and Wages Protection Act breaches. After a 15 percent contribution reduction, JITL was ordered to pay $9,019.44 lost remuneration and $15,300 compensation, plus $5,176.80 arrears and interest, and penalties including $2,500 payable to Mr Singh and $4,500 payable to the Crown...

Steven David Mitchell v Tasman Rugby Union Incorporated [2026] NZERA 435 - CEO returned to payroll on interim reinstatement

Tasman Rugby Union summarily dismissed its CEO, Steven David Mitchell, for alleged serious misconduct. In this interim decision, the ERA did not finally determine the allegations. It found, however, that Mr Mitchell had a strongly arguable unjustified-dismissal case, including an arguable predetermination concern arising from a review process, how that review later fed into the disciplinary process, and Board communications that could indicate adverse and personalised views had formed before the decision. The Authority held that the new 2026 remedies amendments applied, but could not make definitive contribution or serious-misconduct findings at the interim stage. It ordered immediate reinstatement to payroll only, backdated to 21 March 2026, while reserving the substantive merits hearing...

Filisi Beswick v Friendly Loans Limited [2026] NZERA 436 - medical incapacity dismissal without a fair inquiry

Friendly Loans Limited dismissed Filisi Beswick for medical incapacity less than four weeks after she had been admitted to hospital with blurred vision and migraines. On the day of dismissal, she had told the company that her medical position had improved, that she had a negative Covid test, a valid driver licence and an updated medical certificate. She asked for a face-to-face meeting and to discuss work from home. The ERA held the company could not reasonably conclude she was incapable of her ongoing duties, had not sought her input, had not allowed sufficient recovery time, and had not considered alternatives. It also held a $2,439.09 loan deduction from final pay unlawful. The Authority ordered $24,436.09 in total...

Browse topics