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
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.

Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh [2026] NZERA 521 - performance dismissal failed because employee was not fairly heard

PR Kahlon Limited had genuine and well-documented concerns about delivery driver Mandeep Singh's performance, but knew English was a significant barrier and still communicated critical performance and disciplinary information in English rather than Punjabi. The ERA found he did not receive a clear and reasonable opportunity to respond, making his dismissal and suspension unjustified. After a 25 percent contribution reduction, PR Kahlon was ordered to pay $934.29 suspension wages, $10,121.48 lost remuneration, $13,500 compensation and the filing fee.

Browse topics