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
Eun Joo Kim v Sage & Umber Limited and Pei Su [2026] NZERA 555 - public attack caused constructive dismissal

Café owner Pei Su loudly questioned chef Eun Joo Kim's competence and trustworthiness in front of other staff and told her that if she could not do the job she could go. The ERA found this repudiatory conduct caused an unjustified constructive dismissal. Sage & Umber Limited was ordered to pay $8,704.40 gross lost wages, $18,000 compensation, wage and holiday-pay arrears, interest and a penalty.

Valerie Leech v Electrical Importing Co Limited [2026] NZERA 553 - employment was agreed before the 90-day trial was signed

Electrical Importing Co Limited agreed the job's core terms with Valerie Leech and directed her when to start before presenting a written agreement containing a 90-day trial. The ERA found she was already an employee when the trial provision was signed, so the trial was invalid and her dismissal was unjustified. She was awarded $21,250 gross lost remuneration and $13,000 compensation.

LUO v BAZ [2026] NZERA 549 - genuine redundancy undone by inadequate consultation and redeployment

BAZ had genuine financial reasons to restructure, but it gave LUO no proper proposal, financial information, timeframe or clear warning that her job was at risk. It then required her to apply for a new role that was substantially the same as her existing position. The ERA found the redundancy dismissal unjustified and awarded $11,000 compensation.

Jonathan Rhodes v Barfoot & Thompson Limited [2026] NZERA 543 - medical incapacity dismissal before a genuine opportunity to recover

Barfoot & Thompson Limited dismissed Senior Property Manager Jonathan Rhodes for medical incapacity while he was recovering from concussion and further head injuries. The ERA found he had not received a genuine opportunity to recover, the inquiry into his prognosis was incomplete, an imminent neurological assessment was not awaited, and the proposed alternative role did not reflect the clinical advice for a graduated return on reduced hours. The dismissal was unjustified and Barfoot & Thompson was ordered to pay $30,000 compensation.

Briar Kennedy v Adulto HR Limited [2026] NZERA 537 - missing trial clause and predetermined performance dismissal

Adulto HR Limited believed Briar Kennedy was employed on a 90-day trial, but the employment agreement contained no trial provision and was not given to her until after she started work. Adulto then purported to extend the trial into a probationary period and dismissed her after 97 days. The ERA found there was no valid trial or probationary period, the qualification and performance grounds did not justify dismissal, and the outcome was predetermined. Adulto was ordered to pay $14,900 gross lost remuneration and $16,000 compensation.

Browse topics