Share

EXPLAINER | When can an employee claim constructive dismissal based on mental ill health?

accreditation
0:00
play article
Subscribers can listen to this article
Photo: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images

The case at hand illustrates two key points: firstly, employers must show concern once they are aware of mental illness or vulnerabilities an employee is suffering. But secondly, this doesn't give employees free rein to allege constructive dismissal – they must meet certain obligations too. Jean Ewang, Iva Babayi and Phetheni Nkuna explain. 


In the post-Covid landscape there has been a warranted increased awareness on mental health in the workplace.

The Labour Appeal Court has emphasised the importance of an employer – once they are aware of mental illness or vulnerabilities suffered by an employee – showing concern. And employers do have a general obligation to ensure a safe, healthy working environment free from harassment.

But do employees have a free pass? Not exactly.

The case at a glance

Mr Mogomatsi was a Senior Penetration Tester: IT Infrastructure Shared Services at Sanlam Life Insurance Limited.

He alleged having experienced various incidents with his colleagues that left him no option but to resign.

He then referred a constructive dismissal dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). Dissatisfied that the incidents pointed out made out a case for constructive dismissal, the CCMA dismissed the claim.

The Labour Court

Mogomatsi took the matter on review before the Labour Court. The Court found that the arbitrator gave no weight to Mogomatsi's mental health during the arbitration.

Save for Sanlam making an attempt to try and show Mogomatsi that his conduct was not acceptable, no mention was made of his anxiety and depression. There was no evidence the employer considered an ill health process rather than a disciplinary process in the build up to Mogomatsi's resignation.

In the Court's view, an assessment of Mogomatsi's claim correctly made, should have incorporated the common cause fact of the mental ill health he suffered from during the material period. The Court found that Mogomatsi had shown that the employment relationship became intolerable and had been constructively dismissed.

Sanlam, however, appealed the decision on the principal basis that no evidence was presented regarding Mogomatsi's mental health issues during the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, the Labour Court erred in deciding the matter on that basis.

Furthermore, Sanlam was never called upon to defend case that it had failed to treat Mogomatsi with the necessary sensitivity due to his mental illness, thus rendering his employment intolerable.

The Labour Appeal Court

The LAC held that in relation to mental illness and constructive dismissal, the facts of the matter needed to point to the employer having been aware or that they ought to have been aware of the negative mental health of the employee.

Only when an employer was aware of an employee's mental health issues and was indifferent or showed no concern, thus making continued employment intolerable, might a proper case for constructive dismissal be made.

This was not so in this case.

Accordingly, the Labour court misdirected itself when it adjudicated the review based on evidence that was not before the commissioner i.e. the mental illness.

There was insufficient evidence to conclude that Sanlam made continued employment intolerable. Sanlam's appeal therefore succeeded.

So what's the takeaway?

What the LAC emphasised is the importance of an employer, once becoming aware of mental illness or vulnerabilities suffered by an employee, showing concern. Employers have a general obligation to ensure a safe and healthy working environment and prevent and/or eliminate harassment.

Failure to fulfil this obligation may result in employers being held vicariously liable under section 60 of the Employment Equity Act, 1998.

In the context of a constructive dismissal, this however, does not result in a free pass to employees suffering from mental health concerns to allege a constructive dismissal.

The employee would still need to prove that the employer was aware or ought to have been aware of their mental health issues/illness and that such employer was indifferent.


Jean Ewang is a consultant, Iva Babayi is a candidate attorney and Phetheni Nkuna is a director at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr.

News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.

We live in a world where facts and fiction get blurred
Who we choose to trust can have a profound impact on our lives. Join thousands of devoted South Africans who look to News24 to bring them news they can trust every day. As we celebrate 25 years, become a News24 subscriber as we strive to keep you informed, inspired and empowered.
Join News24 today
heading
description
username
Show Comments ()
Rand - Dollar
18.79
+1.2%
Rand - Pound
23.49
-0.3%
Rand - Euro
20.10
-0.1%
Rand - Aus dollar
12.27
-0.2%
Rand - Yen
0.12
-0.3%
Platinum
924.10
0.0%
Palladium
959.00
0.0%
Gold
2,337.68
0.0%
Silver
27.19
-0.0%
Brent Crude
89.50
+0.6%
Top 40
69,358
+1.3%
All Share
75,371
+1.4%
Resource 10
62,363
+0.4%
Industrial 25
103,903
+1.3%
Financial 15
16,161
+2.2%
All JSE data delayed by at least 15 minutes Iress logo
Company Snapshot
Editorial feedback and complaints

Contact the public editor with feedback for our journalists, complaints, queries or suggestions about articles on News24.

LEARN MORE
Government tenders

Find public sector tender opportunities in South Africa here.

Government tenders
This portal provides access to information on all tenders made by all public sector organisations in all spheres of government.
Browse tenders