The Labour Court has upheld the dismissal of a former University of Stellenbosch employee, who argued that his poor work performance was exacerbated by depression.
Dismissed from his role at the University of Stellenbosch on 23 May 2022 after prolonged issues with work performance, Bevin Peter Abels’ situation highlights the ongoing tension between employer obligations and employee health, particularly in the context of mental illness.
His case has sparked a discussion about the balance between employee welfare and workplace accountability amid rising mental health concerns in professional environments.
Abels, whose diagnosis of depression came in January 2021, argued that his mental health condition critically influenced his ability to meet work expectations. However, despite claims to the contrary, the university maintained that his performance issues were persistent and predated his diagnosis, with measures taken to support him reaching an apparent impasse.
These measures included a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) and opportunities for medical leave, which the university contended fulfilled its duty to accommodate his health issues.
After his dismissal, Abels escalated the matter to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), where the commissioner ultimately ruled that the dismissal was indeed fair and justified based on his inadequate work output.
This decision was rooted in a robust analysis of the evidence presented, including Abels’ own admissions regarding his performance prior to the diagnosis of his depression.
Despite Abels’ claims that his dismissal stemmed from his ill-health rather than performance issues, the commissioner found that Abels had not adequately demonstrated a direct correlation between his mental health and his job performance.
The well-established reasonableness test applied in such cases determined that the commissioner’s decision was one that could be reasonably reached by any fair-minded decision-maker.
In the ensuing legal review at the Labour Court, Abels argued that the commissioner erred in interpreting the facts of the case and misapplied relevant legal principles, asserting that the university had not fully explored alternative options before resorting to dismissal.
However, the court upheld the previous findings, asserting that the university had made sufficient attempts to consider Abels’ medical condition while also complying with its obligations as an employer.
The dismissal process was recognised as procedurally fair, highlighting the university’s attempts to provide Abels with the necessary opportunities to improve his performance.
Find the full court judgement on the Southern African Legal Information Institute.
Also read:
Hundreds of court judgments are late
Picture: Unsplash