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
Philip Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 481 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Philip Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a site foreman in a logging operation. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow any real good-faith consultation process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of paying notice wages, failed to provide wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages, penalties, and to allow limited personal recovery against the director if the company could not pay...

Conner Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 480 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Conner Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a forestry worker from November 2022 until his employment ended on redundancy grounds in January 2025. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow a good-faith restructuring process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of notice wages, failed to provide the employment agreement and wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages and penalties...

Jia Jia v TBS Trading Limited and Helen Han [2026] NZERA 478 - no employment agreement, late wages and radio-silent dismissal

Jia Jia worked for TBS Trading Limited as a retail sales assistant for about two and a half months. She was not given a written employment agreement, her wages were not always paid on time, and her employment ended after the employer stopped offering her full-time work and then stopped offering her work at all. The ERA found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage. It ordered two months' lost wages, $12,500 compensation, penalties for failing to provide an employment agreement and late wage payment, costs and the filing fee. Helen Han was not found personally liable for dismissal remedies, but the ERA granted leave for Ms Jia to recover the penalties from Ms Han personally if TBS could not pay them...

OAS v JIK Limited [2026] NZERA 474 - employee dismissed after seeking family violence leave

OAS was employed as a chef by JIK Limited. After a family violence incident involving his ex-partner, OAS told the employer he needed time away from work to keep his children safe, deal with urgent family matters, meet a victim support adviser and pursue protection-order steps. JIK treated his messages as a resignation or abandonment of employment and left him off the next roster. The ERA held that OAS had not resigned or abandoned his job. He was entitled to family violence leave and JIK's decision not to roster him again was a dismissal. The dismissal was unjustified because JIK failed to engage with the family violence situation and dismissed him for missing work when he was entitled to be away. The Authority awarded compensation and lost wages, reduced by 10 percent for contribution...

Duane April v Coatrite Fire Limited [2026] NZERA 466 - visa worker underpaid, racialised comments, unlawful deductions and unjustified dismissal

Duane April came to New Zealand on an accredited employer work visa to work for Coatrite Fire Limited as an industrial/intumescent spray painter. The ERA found he had been unjustifiably disadvantaged by underpayment at $35 rather than the agreed $38 per hour, unauthorised wage deductions, racialised comments, and an unjustified verbal warning. His later dismissal was also unjustified. The employer failed to provide sufficient information about the allegations, unfairly denied remote support from Mr April's father, relied on matters not properly investigated, and dismissed him after a meeting that had ended with an apparent understanding the employment relationship would continue. Coatrite was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, arrears, interest and a $4,000 penalty, while most of its claimed set-off against Mr April was rejected...

Browse topics