What to do with a staff member that just does not fit:
It is difficult to maintain a working environment in which there are never conflict. Usually, conflict can be resolved. The Labour Relations Act even provides for employees to submit grievance should a situation arise in which the employee feels that they are being treated unfairly by another employee or manager. This is nothing new.
However, in some instances, the conflict between staff members seems to be unresolvable. Some people call it a “personality clash”. Others state it more bluntly. Regardless on what you may call it, it happens, that at times, employees just cannot get along with the rest of their collegues. This failure to “fit in” creates disharmony, and inevitably sours the whole working environment.
In the absence of statutory guidance on the principle of incompatibility, the principle that the employer is entitled to require peace and harmonious working relationships in the organisation, has been confirmed by a number of case law over the years. This include case such as Erasmus v BB Bread Ltd [1987] 8 ILJ 537 (IC)). In these cases, it is an implied term of the employment contract that the employee must not act in a way which results in disharmony and a breakdown in the relationship. This notion is also affirmed in the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research v Fijen [1996] 6 BLLR (AD).
In cases like this, it is usually advisable to approach the situation with caution. Unless the employee had committed any clear form of misconduct, it may be best to address this type of behaviour like any other forms of incapacity. There may be multiple reasons for the employee’s conduct, and the onus resides on the employer to determine any unlaying reasons.
In the case of Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers’ Union obo Mokoena / Sasol Chemical Operations (Pty) Ltd [2022] BALR 105 (NBCC I), in which an employee was dismissed for their incompatibility, the employee continued to lodge grievances against fellow colleagues and even displayed aggression to his immediate superiors. It seemed as if this behaviour started as a result of a disagreement during a performance review in which he received a poor rating.
In the above-mentioned case, the underlaying reasons behind the employee’s conduct seem to stem from his financial and familial problems which affected his mental focus and concentration at work. Instead of immediately jumping to disciplinary action due to poor performance, the employer decided to try and assist the employee through the process of the Independent Counselling and Advisory Services (“ICAS”). During this process it was established that the employee was fit to perform his work. Regrettably, the employee continuously rejected any advice received and persistently raised issues that had previously been dealt with. The employee performed very poorly in his performance review, and the employee started to file continues grievances. Despite the employer’s attempt to resolve these grievances, and after a meeting where it was agreed to “bury old wounds”, the grievances continued. These incessant frivolous complaints resulted in the previous harmonious working environment becoming toxic. In addition, the employee continued to display a failure to follow instructions and even displayed a hostility towards management. In the end, the employee was dismissed for his incompatibility.
During the CCMA case, the Commissioner relied on the case of Jabari v Telkom SA (Pty) Ltd [2006] 10 BLLR 924 (LC), in which the Labour Court highlighted important characteristics in explaining the nature of workplace incompatibility. It said that:
“…incompatibility refers to the employee’s inability or failure to maintain cordial and harmonious relationships with his (or her) peers, incompatibility is a form of incapacity and incompatibility is an “amorphous nebulous concept” based on subjective value judgments”.
In this particular case, the CCMA found that the employee had disrupted the harmony of the workplace, warranting dismissal. In conclusion, incompatibility must reflect an irreconcilable breakdown in the working relationship caused by personality differences, resulting in the employee’s inability to work with others (Wright v St Mary’s Hospital, 1992).
