‘Impractical’ Performance Measurement Tool Sinks Audi Dealer in Unfair Dismissal Case

An Audi Service Advisor has won his unfair dismissal claim after the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found a luxury car dealership’s reliance on customer survey scores to measure performance was inappropriate. 

What happened?

The applicant in the matter was employed at Audi Indooroopilly.  His role involved greeting customers, providing cost estimates for work to be carried out, liaising with technicians, advising customers when cars are ready for pick-up, and taking payments.  He was paid an annual salary of $47,000 and entitled to a monthly commission of 1% based on a range of upsell products he sold. 

Audi Indooroopilly asks its customers to complete a customer satisfaction survey.  Completed surveys are used to determine an overall ‘Customer Experience Marker’ (CEM).  A CEM score of 4.5 or higher entitled the applicant to receive commission payments in addition to his salary.

On 4 January 2019, the applicant was told by the Aftersales Manager that his CEM scores must improve as they were under the national benchmark set by Audi Australia and therefore reflected poorly on the dealership.  On 21 February 2019, the applicant received a first and final warning letter which referred to his results from January 2019 and required that he improve his performance with an emphasis on the customer experience. The applicant was dismissed in a meeting on 22 March 2019 with the Aftersales Manager.  He was issued with a dismissal letter which referred to his CEM results being under the national average.

FWC decision

Commissioner Hunt of the FWC examined the survey questions sent to customers and observed that the fourth question, “If you now think about this service centre visit overall, how satisfied are you with our services?”, seemed to be the most important question.  The Commissioner observed that the question is extraordinarily broad, and yet is used by the dealership to measure the performance of individual Service Advisors.  Noting that there may be many and varied reasons unrelated to a Service Advisor’s duties behind a low score from a customer, the Commissioner considered the measurement was inherently unfair such that it could not provide a valid reason for the applicant’s dismissal.  The Commissioner went on to describe the survey results as an “impractical” tool for objectively measuring performance. 

The FWC also found that the applicant was not provided with an opportunity to respond to the reason for dismissal before concluding he had been unfairly dismissed. 

The applicant was awarded 10 weeks’ wages as compensation for his unfair dismissal.

Brennan v ASG Brisbane Pty Ltd T/A Audi Indooroopilly [2019] FWC 7630