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
Sirikanya Pankhum v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 149 - WhatsApp dismissal during probation, no process; $12,500 compensation, $7,873.92 lost wages, $311.28 holiday pay

A retail assistant was dismissed by WhatsApp during a probation period after the employer relied on KPI metrics from CCTV and 'performance reports' but never raised concerns in writing or held any disciplinary meeting. The ERA held the employer ignored its own staged warning policy and the s...

Clive Bryham v Electrix Limited (trading as Omexom New Zealand) [2026] NZERA 147 - interim reinstatement granted; arguable unjustified dismissal where employer alleged reputational harm without evidence

Interim reinstatement decision. A field operations manager with 16 years service was summarily dismissed for serious misconduct after an 'illegal connection' incident involving a direct report. The ERA found a serious question to be tried on unjustified dismissal (including a mismatch between...

Yang (Helen) Feng v Dong Construction and Dong Wang [2026] NZERA 132 - trial period, wages/entitlements; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

Outcome: see the Authority's findings and orders in the embedded determination. At the material time, the first respondent, Dong Construction Limited (Dong Construction), was an Accredited Employer under Immigration New Zealand's (INZ's) Accredited Employer Work Visa Sc...

Rimple Rimple v NZ - Kebabs Limited, Rupinder Kaur Bal, Gursahib Singh Dhillon, and Harpal Bal [2026] NZERA 128 - premium sought for AEWV role; abandonment dismissal unjustified after visa cancellation; $22,620 lost wages, $14,000 compensation, $16,000 penalty plus entitlements

A Rotorua kebab restaurant recruited a kitchen hand from India on an Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV). The ERA found the employer (through a director) sought a $34,000 premium to secure the job, breaching s 12A Wages Protection Act, and imposed a $16,000 penalty. The employee was later...

Thomas Patrick Kenna v Anztec Limited [2026] NZERA 120 - redundancy found genuine but consultation defective; unjustified disadvantage; $15,000 compensation

Anztec made a senior assembly technician redundant in a small-business restructure. The ERA accepted the redundancy was genuine and the dismissal was substantively justified, but found significant good faith/consultation defects - including failure to proactively disclose information.

Gemma Pedersen v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 108 - dismissed by WhatsApp on KPI probation grounds without proper training; unjustified disadvantage and dismissal upheld; $15,917.48 ordered

A retail assistant was dismissed during a probation period after the employer said CCTV and KPI reports showed targets were not met. The ERA found the employer had not provided adequate POS and legal process training, yet relied on KPI results, and then terminated employment out of the blue by...

Browse topics