Mark Cromie Motor Group unjustifiably dismissed a staff member

Mark Cromie Motor Group breached the Employment Relations Act by unjustifiably dismissing an employee who was on a fixed-term contract. Photo / Tania Whyte

A Northland car dealer has been ordered to pay nearly $24,000 to an employee it was judged to have unjustifiably dismissed after determining her role was surplus to requirement.

Kerry Crossley signed a fixed-term employment agreement of four months early this year with Kwik Kiwi Cars, which trades as Mark Cromie Motor Group in Whangārei, but was told before its expiry she wouldn't be offered a new contract.

She took the company to the Employment Relations Authority, arguing expiry of the four-month employment was ineffective and the company's actions amounted to unjustified dismissal.

ERA member Anna Fitzgibbon ordered the company to pay Crossley $20,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to her feelings, and $3770 in lost remuneration.

Company director Mark Cromie declined to comment when contacted.

Following Kwik Kiwi purchasing the IC Motor Group operation, Crossley signed a fixed-term employment contract that stipulated her job would start on February 8 and end on June 7, 2019.

The reason for the agreement was that, as a result of the merger, restructuring was more than likely.

Crossley worked for the IC Motor Group on and off as a booking consultant for about 20 years. The fixed-term agreement included a redundancy clause that said there could be circumstances where her role may not be needed before the expiry of the contact.

She was asked to attend a meeting in May with Cromie, then general manager Richard Evans and brand manager Heath Kendall where she was informed that after her contract expired, she wouldn't be offered a new role.

Crossley became upset as she had not expected the termination of her employment to be discussed at the meeting, she did not have a support person and felt intimidated at having to meet three senior managers.

Evans responded to Crossley stating that it was not his intention that she be intimidated and the reason the senior managers were present was to offer different views on suggestions that may arise. He stated:

''Unfortunately, you did not give us the opportunity to further discuss the issue or any options because you stood up and demanded to leave the room immediately after the explanation of the meeting, you will recall that I asked you not to leave but to hear us out. It was your wish to leave immediately. It was by your choice that you did not get the opportunity to suggest lower hours, other jobs etc. You referred to being "Fired". This was not the case. You had a fixed-term contract and the reasons for not extending it were the reasons given for making the initial contract fixed term.''

Crossley told the ERA she felt she had been "used" to train new staff and then dismissed without good reason.

The company told the ERA the fixed-term employment agreement was to enable it to determine the final structure for the merged business which wasn't known at the time of the merger.

IC Group had too many staff and that redundancies were likely, Evans told the ERA.

The decision to let Crossley's employment agreement expire was not a redundancy situation, he said.

But Fitzgibbon said the company neither revisited its decision nor considered other options before terminating Crossley's employment.

"Rather than terminating her employment for redundancy in accordance with her employment agreement, Mark Cromie Group sought to rely on the expiry of the fixed-term employment agreement to terminate Ms Crossley's employment," Fitzgibbon ruled.