Mental health has become an increasingly prominent issue within South African workplaces. Employers are more frequently confronted with employees who attribute workplace misconduct, absenteeism, dishonesty, insubordination, poor performance, or inappropriate conduct to depression, anxiety, trauma, burnout, stress-related conditions, or other forms of psychological distress. As awareness surrounding mental health continues to grow, so too does the need for employers to understand the legal implications of mental-health-related allegations within disciplinary and incapacity processes.

A recurring question arising in labour disputes is whether an employee’s mental health condition may excuse misconduct or poor performance altogether, or whether it merely constitutes a mitigating factor when determining an appropriate sanction. South African labour law has increasingly recognised the importance of mental health in the workplace. However, the jurisprudence confirms that mental health does not operate as an automatic defence to workplace misconduct, nor does it automatically convert misconduct into incapacity for ill health. Instead, employers are required to adopt a balanced and fact-specific approach when mental health concerns are raised. This requires consideration of whether there is a genuine causal nexus between the employee’s condition and the conduct complained of, while employees bear the responsibility of placing sufficient evidence before the employer to substantiate such reliance.

Mental Health and Workplace Accountability

South African labour law distinguishes between misconduct and incapacity. Misconduct ordinarily involves blameworthy or wilful conduct, whereas incapacity concerns an employee’s inability to meet required standards due to factors such as ill health or poor work performance. Mental health allegations may therefore, depending on the circumstances, become relevant to either enquiry. Importantly, however, allegations of mental ill health do not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings or immunise employees from accountability. Employers are not required to abandon misconduct proceedings merely because an employee alleges depression, stress, anxiety, or emotional difficulties. Rather, the employer must investigate whether the employee’s condition materially contributed to the misconduct or whether the matter is more appropriately dealt with as one of incapacity

In appropriate circumstances, mental health concerns may:

explain certain forms of conduct, particularly emotional outbursts, absenteeism, erratic behaviour, or behavioural changes;
constitute mitigating factors when determining an appropriate sanction; or
trigger an incapacity investigation where the employee’s conduct appears to arise from impairment or inability rather than wilful misconduct.

The Requirement of a Causal Nexus

The Labour Court considered these principles in Pahlanga v Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (SOC) Ltd and Others (C564/2019) [2021] ZALCCT 48 (9 July 2021). The employee had been absent from work without authorisation and contended that his conduct was linked to depression and related emotional distress. The Court emphasised that while employers are required to approach allegations of mental ill health with appropriate sensitivity, employees cannot rely on broad or unsubstantiated assertions of psychological difficulties. Crucially, the employee failed to establish a sufficient causal connection between his alleged condition and the misconduct in question. The judgment confirmed that mental health concerns do not automatically excuse misconduct or prevent employers from pursuing disciplinary action. Rather, there must be adequate evidence demonstrating that the employee’s condition materially contributed to, or caused, the conduct complained of. The decision is significant because it reinforces that the evidentiary burden does not shift entirely onto employers once mental health is raised. Employees remain responsible for placing sufficient information before the employer to establish the existence, nature, and impact of the alleged condition.

Mental Health and Poor Performance

Similar principles were reaffirmed in Abels v University of Stellenbosch and Another (C362/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 51 (4 July 2025). In this matter, the employee challenged the fairness of his dismissal on the basis that his poor work performance stemmed from depression and related mental health concerns. He further argued that the employer ought to have treated the matter as one of incapacity for ill health rather than poor performance. The Labour Court found that the employer had acted fairly by engaging with the employee regarding his performance deficiencies, considering the surrounding circumstances, and affording him an opportunity to improve. Importantly, however, the employee failed to demonstrate that his mental health condition materially impaired his ability to meet the required performance standards. The Court accordingly confirmed that the mere existence of a mental health condition does not automatically convert poor performance or misconduct into incapacity. The decisive enquiry remains whether the condition genuinely affected the employee’s ability to perform or comply with workplace standards

Practical Implications for Employers

These judgments illustrate the importance of carefully distinguishing between misconduct, poor performance, and incapacity when mental health concerns arise in the workplace. Employers who disregard genuine mental health concerns expose themselves to procedural and substantive fairness challenges. Equally, however, employers are not required to accept unsupported allegations of mental ill health at face value. When mental health issues are raised during workplace proceedings, employers should:

conduct an appropriate investigation into the nature and extent of the alleged condition;
consider whether medical or psychological evidence is required;
assess whether there is a causal link between the condition and the conduct complained of;
determine whether the matter is more appropriately addressed through incapacity procedures; and
ensure that disciplinary processes remain procedurally fair and sensitive to the employee’s circumstances.

Managers and disciplinary chairpersons should avoid assuming that all misconduct linked to emotional distress necessarily constitutes incapacity. Each matter must be determined on its own facts, with careful regard to both the employee’s medical condition and the operational requirements of the workplace.