ClickCease

Ms Levi-Adams was dismissed by Greene after a process in which important material was not provided to her until after the termination decision. The ERA examined whether she had been given the information and opportunity to respond that a fair and reasonable employer was required to provide.

The short answer

The ERA found Ms Levi-Adams was unjustifiably dismissed. It awarded $13,500 compensation and 13 weeks' lost wages, and costs were awarded.


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 cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics