ClickCease

LEVI-ADAMS v GREENE [2025] NZERA 531 - The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. She was given notice of her dismissal on 7 August 2023, and her employment ended on 21 August 2023.


LEVI-ADAMS v GREENE [2025] NZERA 531

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 531
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: LEVI-ADAMS v GREENE
  • Authority member: Jeremy Lynch
  • Hearing date: 13 November 2024, 13 August 2025
  • 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 was given notice of her dismissal on 7 August 2023, and her employment ended on 21 August 2023. After that, Instead, two days prior to the November 2024 investigation meeting, Mr Greene lodged signed (but undated) letters from Yess's former assistant manager Dyannah Mika, and the director of the Waitakere Alternative Education Consortium (the Consortium), Frank Veacock. Later, Adjournment for further mediation [8] After the Authority had finished taking the parties' evidence at the 13 November 2024 investigation meeting (but prior to the parties' closing submissions), an adjournment was sought. The determination records that Ms Levi-Adams says that on 7 August 2023 (three days after her dismissal), she received an email from Mr Greene with (quoted wording omitted) in the subject line. The Authority notes that Attached to the email is a letter dated 21 June 2023, which is not a reference but instead appears to be a written warning. Ultimately, Ms Levi-Adams says the first time she received this was when it was emailed to her after her dismissal on 7 August 2025, and not at any time prior to this. In the end, At the November investigation meeting, Mr Greene accepted that this warning letter had not been provided to Ms Levi-Adams on any other occasion prior to 7 August 2023.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
  • The parties are LEVI-ADAMS (employee) and GREENE (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 13 November 2024, 13 August 2025.
  • Authority member: Jeremy Lynch.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

  • She was given notice of her dismissal on 7 August 2023, and her employment ended on 21 August 2023.
  • Instead, two days prior to the November 2024 investigation meeting, Mr Greene lodged signed (but undated) letters from Yess's former assistant manager Dyannah Mika, and the director of the Waitakere Alternative Education Consortium (the Consortium), Frank Veacock.
  • Adjournment for further mediation [8] After the Authority had finished taking the parties' evidence at the 13 November 2024 investigation meeting (but prior to the parties' closing submissions), an adjournment was sought.
  • A further investigation meeting was held on 13 August 2025, for the parties to provide their closing submissions.
  • Ms Levi-Adams says that on 7 August 2023 (three days after her dismissal), she received an email from Mr Greene with (quoted wording omitted) in the subject line.
  • Attached to the email is a letter dated 21 June 2023, which is not a reference but instead appears to be a written warning.
  • Ms Levi-Adams says the first time she received this was when it was emailed to her after her dismissal on 7 August 2025, and not at any time prior to this.
  • At the November investigation meeting, Mr Greene accepted that this warning letter had not been provided to Ms Levi-Adams on any other occasion prior to 7 August 2023.
  • However, at the resumption investigation meeting of 13 August 2025, Mr Greene submitted that he had emailed this warning letter to Ms Levi-Adams prior to her dismissal.
  • When the meeting resumed, Mr Greene said he was unable to find any record of the letter being sent to Ms Levi-Adams other than on 7 August 2023, and he accepted that this warning letter had not been provided to her at any stage prior to her dismissal.
  • Mr Greene accepted that prior to the discussion in the work van on 4 August 2023 at which Ms Levi-Adams was dismissed (the dismissal meeting), he did not inform her that she could seek representation for the meeting.
  • Mr Greene also accepted that nothing was investigated prior to this meeting; any concerns he had about Ms Levi- Adams' performance (including her punctuality and attendance) were not put to her for comment prior to the decision to dismiss.
  • Ms Levi-Adams' employment was terminated without warning during the dismissal meeting.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

  • Ms Levi-Adams has established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.
  • The Authority was satisfied that in the circumstances of this matter, no issues as to mitigation arise.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $13,500
  • Lost Wages: 13 weeks'
  • 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

  • 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
LJB v EBD [2026] NZERA 78 - resigned employee sent home mid-notice with no process; dismissal unjustified; $16,500 compensation plus $9,000 penalties for withheld wages and missing time records

A marketing and events assistant resigned with one month's notice, but was called into a surprise meeting and told to clear her desk and leave immediately. The ERA held this was a dismissal at the employer's initiative (a 'sending away'), not an agreed early finish, and the employer could not...

Jack Wills v Complex Forme Limited [2026] NZERA 76 - health centre worker dismissed by silence after no contract and no pay; $25,526.80 ordered plus penalties

A part-time pool receptionist/manager at a Hastings health and wellness centre was never given a written employment agreement and was never paid for 32 hours worked. After he asked for clarity about his pay and roster, the employer stopped responding, removed his staff access, and asked for his...

Wallace v Tang & Son Ltd [2026] NZERA 67 - husband-and-wife chefs dismissed after management conflict; both succeed; $95,448 ordered

Husband-and-wife chefs were dismissed from an Auckland waterfront cafe after an escalating conflict with new management. The ERA found the employer did not investigate properly or give either employee a real opportunity to respond. Both personal grievances were upheld and $95,448 was ordered (lost wages and compensation), payable within 28 days. Costs were reserved.

Kyle Spencer v Modern Transport Engineers Limited [2026] NZERA 60 - dismissal unjustified due to non-minor process defects; $12,000 compensation and employer damages offset

The ERA held the employee's dismissal was unjustified because the disciplinary process had significant defects, including an early stand-down before his views were sought, undisclosed staff discussions, and concern about pre-determination. Even though serious misconduct findings were substantively open on the evidence, the employee was awarded $12,000 compensation after a 20% contribution reduction. The employee was also ordered to repay the employer proven costs for unauthorised private work and purchases, with labour to be recalculated under Appendix A and final pay to be offset.

Yifu Jiang v Smartrade Limited [2026] NZERA 56 - fixed-term clause held unlawful; unjustified dismissal; $15,600 lost wages and $12,000 compensation

ERA held the employer could not rely on a one-year fixed-term clause because the statutory requirements were not met (no genuine reasons agreed and reasons not recorded). Ending employment without giving the employee a chance to comment was unjustified. Orders: $15,600 gross lost wages and $12,000 compensation (costs reserved).

Aiga Faamanu Roache v Landcorp Farming Limited t/a Pamu [2026] NZERA 55 - redundancy restructure held unjustified; $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 lost wages

ERA held the employee's redundancy dismissal was unjustified: Pamu relied on automation efficiencies but did not clearly justify why the AP Team Leader role was surplus, ran a short consultation, and mishandled redeployment communications. Orders: $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 net lost wages.

Browse topics