Managing poor work performance becomes significantly more complex when mental health concerns enter the equation. Many employers hesitate to initiate disciplinary processes in these situations, worried about potential legal repercussions or being perceived as unsympathetic to employee wellness.

Yet, employers must still meet operational demands while ensuring that affected employees are treated with fairness and respect. This requires a careful, case-specific assessment that identifies the real cause of underperformance and ensures appropriate support has been offered without compromising legitimate performance standards.

Case Spotlight: Abels v University of Stellenbosch and Others

In a recent judgment delivered by the Labour Court on 4 July 2025, Abels v University of Stellenbosch and Others (C362/2023) [2025] ZALCCT 43, the court was asked to weigh in on whether an employer had acted fairly in dismissing a long-serving employee with a mental health diagnosis.

Overview of the Dispute

Mr Abels, employed as a Faculty Administrator at Stellenbosch University, faced dismissal due to ongoing concerns about his performance. The University had implemented a performance improvement plan, engaged in regular feedback sessions, and offered various forms of assistance in response to the challenges Mr Abels faced in executing his responsibilities.

He later took the matter to the CCMA, claiming his depression was the root cause of his underperformance and that the University had effectively dismissed him due to his health, rather than for performance-related reasons. He argued that they should have initiated an incapacity process instead of treating the issue as misconduct or poor performance.

What the Commissioner Found

The CCMA dismissed Mr Abels’ claim. In assessing the facts, the Commissioner applied legal principles from the case Legal Aid SA v Jansen, which clarified that employees bear the responsibility of proving a direct connection between their mental health condition and their inability to perform at work.

In this case, the Commissioner held that the employee’s underperformance had predated his formal diagnosis of depression. Moreover, there was clear evidence of consistent efforts by the University to accommodate and assist him. These included alternative strategies and support interventions, all of which were documented and implemented over an extended period.

The Commissioner also referenced Somyo v Ross Poultry Breeders (Pty) Ltd, where the Labour Appeal Court held that senior employees may be held to higher accountability standards given their roles and responsibilities. As Mr Abels held a senior administrative post, the University was entitled to expect a degree of initiative and self-management from him.

Labour Court Review: No Grounds to Interfere

Unhappy with the arbitration outcome, Mr Abels escalated the matter to the Labour Court. However, the Court found no misdirection or unreasonable conclusion in the Commissioner’s findings.

The Court affirmed that while employers must reasonably accommodate employees with mental health conditions, such an obligation must be balanced against the employee’s duty to demonstrate that their condition directly impairs their ability to meet performance standards. In this case, Mr Abels failed to show that his mental health condition was the dominant cause of his continued underperformance or that the employer had failed in its duty of accommodation.

Lessons for Employers

This case offers the following valuable insights:

1. Mental Health and Performance Are Not Mutually Exclusive: Employers must approach poor performance cases with care where mental illness is involved, ensuring both legal compliance and humane treatment. However, this does not exempt employees from accountability.
2. Proof Is Key: The burden lies with the employee to prove that their condition directly impacted their job performance. Without clear medical evidence or a direct causal link, employers remain within their rights to manage poor performance.
3. The Role of Accommodation: Employers are expected to explore reasonable accommodations, but they are not required to tolerate substandard performance indefinitely, particularly where supportive measures have already been offered.
4. Heightened Expectations for Senior Roles: Employees in senior or managerial positions are expected to be familiar with performance standards and capable of self-correction, meaning procedural requirements may be less stringent.

In sum, employers are advised to document all interventions carefully and to proceed with compassion, clarity, and procedural fairness when navigating the intersection of performance management and mental health.