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
Rachel Hankins v Huhtamaki Henderson Limited [2026] NZERA 379 - valid fixed term but unjustified early termination

Rachel Hankins was engaged as an accountant on a fixed term maternity-cover agreement due to end on 15 August 2025. The ERA found the fixed term complied with section 66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, but Huhtamaki Henderson Limited prematurely ended the employment relationship by requiring the return of company property, cutting off IT access, and treating her engagement as concluded before the agreed end date. The Authority found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage, ordering $11,500 compensation and four weeks' salary.

ZZP v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZERA 367 - medical incapacity dismissal unjustified because final concerns were not put to the employee

ZZP was dismissed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on medical grounds after a lengthy absence and a failed return-to-work attempt. The ERA accepted that IRD had given ZZP a reasonable opportunity to recover and had been entitled to treat the medical evidence cautiously. However, the dismissal was unjustified because the decision maker relied on several concerns in the final decision letter that had not been put to ZZP for comment. Reinstatement and lost wages were declined, but compensation was assessed at $25,000 and reduced by 25 percent for contribution, resulting in $18,750 payable.

Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369 - genuine redundancy but flawed consultation and undisclosed selection criteria

Jeanette Go was made redundant from her estimator role at Point Limited after a downturn in estimation work. Point accepted its redundancy process was flawed because it did not disclose the selection criteria and did not interview the other estimators. The ERA accepted there was a genuine business reason and that the outcome was unlikely to have changed, but found Ms Go was unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by the flawed process. Point was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation and $5,769.23 gross lost wages. Penalties were declined and costs were reserved.

Selwyn McDonald v Traffica Roading Services Limited [2026] NZERA 360 - on-the-spot dismissal after heated worksite exchange

Selwyn McDonald was summarily dismissed on site by Traffica Roading Services Limited after a heated exchange with director Bashir Ahmed. The ERA accepted Traffica's account that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but still found the dismissal unjustified because he was dismissed on the spot without a fair opportunity to respond. Remedies were reduced by 40 percent for contribution. Traffica was ordered to pay $9,000 compensation and $3,800 gross lost wages.

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos v Nresh Group Limited [2026] NZERA 363 - hostile workplace, visa pressure, unjustified dismissal, wage arrears and penalties

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos, a painter's assistant employed by Nresh Group Limited, succeeded in personal grievance claims for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal. The ERA found Nresh created a hostile and insecure work environment, failed to follow a fair dismissal process, and had no substantive justification for dismissal. Nresh was ordered to pay $25,000 compensation, $1,440 gross lost wages, $2,698.15 gross wage arrears, public holiday entitlements for Good Friday and ANZAC Day 2024, interest, and penalties split between Mr Dos Santos and the Crown.

Browse topics