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
Lita Beattie v Matthew Roberts [2026] NZERA 450 - employee status, unpaid wages and constructive dismissal

Lita Beattie worked long hours as head chef for Matthew Roberts at Matt's Kitchen but was paid sporadically, sometimes in cash, and often not at all. Mr Roberts argued the arrangement was a contracting or business-support arrangement, partly connected with an alleged debt. The ERA found Ms Beattie was an employee. The Flexi Wage subsidy discussions, the intended employment agreement, her integration into the business, the absence of invoices, and the fact she worked under Mr Roberts' direction all pointed to employment. The failure to pay wages was a serious breach that foreseeably compelled her resignation, so the resignation was a constructive dismissal. Mr Roberts was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation, $14,040 lost wages, $23,050 gross wage arrears, $1,844 annual holiday arrears, PAYE and KiwiSaver accounting, and interest on wage and holiday arrears...

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham v Queenstown Nursery Limited [2026] NZERA 446 - casual employment, fixed assignment and unjustified dismissal

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham were working holiday visa holders engaged by Queenstown Nursery Limited as casual nursery assistants. The employer argued their work was offered only day by day and could simply stop being offered. The ERA disagreed. An email promising Monday to Wednesday work for at least the next three weeks created an assignment extending to 23 April 2025. When QNL ended the work on 15 April, it said the reason was weather, but later acknowledged the applicants had been selected because they were considered less efficient. The Authority found no fair process, no evidence of substantive justification, and a breach of good faith. Each applicant was awarded $848 gross for four lost working days, including Easter Monday as an otherwise working day, and $2,000 compensation...

Sukhmanpreet Singh v JIT Limited, Davinder Pal and Harmanpreet Kaur Sandhu [2026] NZERA 453 - forced leave request, unjustified suspension and dismissal

JIT Limited dismissed Sukhmanpreet Singh after an argument with a director about annual leave. The ERA found the employer had unlawfully pressured him to write an annual-leave request, then suspended him by cancelling shifts without proper process, and later dismissed him without a fair investigation or fair opportunity to answer the full allegations. A pushing allegation was not established. The Authority also found wage and public-holiday arrears, record-keeping failures, and Wages Protection Act breaches. After a 15 percent contribution reduction, JITL was ordered to pay $9,019.44 lost remuneration and $15,300 compensation, plus $5,176.80 arrears and interest, and penalties including $2,500 payable to Mr Singh and $4,500 payable to the Crown...

Steven David Mitchell v Tasman Rugby Union Incorporated [2026] NZERA 435 - CEO returned to payroll on interim reinstatement

Tasman Rugby Union summarily dismissed its CEO, Steven David Mitchell, for alleged serious misconduct. In this interim decision, the ERA did not finally determine the allegations. It found, however, that Mr Mitchell had a strongly arguable unjustified-dismissal case, including an arguable predetermination concern arising from a review process, how that review later fed into the disciplinary process, and Board communications that could indicate adverse and personalised views had formed before the decision. The Authority held that the new 2026 remedies amendments applied, but could not make definitive contribution or serious-misconduct findings at the interim stage. It ordered immediate reinstatement to payroll only, backdated to 21 March 2026, while reserving the substantive merits hearing...

Filisi Beswick v Friendly Loans Limited [2026] NZERA 436 - medical incapacity dismissal without a fair inquiry

Friendly Loans Limited dismissed Filisi Beswick for medical incapacity less than four weeks after she had been admitted to hospital with blurred vision and migraines. On the day of dismissal, she had told the company that her medical position had improved, that she had a negative Covid test, a valid driver licence and an updated medical certificate. She asked for a face-to-face meeting and to discuss work from home. The ERA held the company could not reasonably conclude she was incapable of her ongoing duties, had not sought her input, had not allowed sufficient recovery time, and had not considered alternatives. It also held a $2,439.09 loan deduction from final pay unlawful. The Authority ordered $24,436.09 in total...

Ronald Thomas Shea v STLand Contracting Limited (in liquidation) [2026] NZERA 420 - dismissed by phone without a process

Ronald Thomas Shea was told by phone that there was no more work for him after his trucking and contracting hours fell sharply. STLand Contracting Limited had genuine financial pressure and could have commenced a workplace change process, but it did nothing. The ERA found a clear dismissal without consultation, found that Mr Shea had also been bullied in an unsafe workplace, and ordered $45,600 in notice pay, lost wages, compensation and costs...

Browse topics