Incompatibility in the Workplace

Introduction

Conflict between employees in the workplace is an increasingly prevalent trend. Employers often find themselves uncertain about how best to manage such disputes. Selecting the appropriate process to address the situation is of critical importance, as both the stability of workplace relationships and the employer’s legal obligations are at stake. While instances of misconduct and poor performance are relatively straightforward to categorise within the framework of South African labour law, conflict arising from interpersonal disharmony presents a more complex challenge.

The Problem Of Workplace Conflict

An employee’s disruptive attitude, temper, lack of tact, manipulative tendencies, or general inability to maintain cordial relationships can significantly hinder workplace harmony. While such employees may achieve performance targets, their behaviour may nonetheless generate persistent complaints from colleagues, alienate clients, and create defensive resistance when addressed. For employers, inaction is not an option: they have both the right to maintain harmonious working relationships and the obligation to ensure a safe and non-toxic workplace environment.

In many instances, employers initially turn to mediation, often through external specialists. Where this fails, however, employers must be guided by established legal principles to determine their rights and obligations.

Incompatibility in South African Labour Law

Although the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”) does not explicitly list “incompatibility” as a ground for dismissal, South African case law has developed the principle that incompatibility constitutes a species of incapacity. It is defined as the inability of an employee to work harmoniously within the employer’s organisational culture or with fellow employees.

The Labour Appeal Court in Zeda Car Leasing (Pty) Ltd t/a Avis Fleet v Van Dyk (JA53/18) [2020] ZALAC 4 confirmed that incompatibility may constitute a substantively fair reason for dismissal where an employee cannot sustain relationships reasonably required in the workplace. Similarly, the Labour Court in Mgijma v MEC, Gauteng Department of Education (2014) 25 SALLR 558 identified factors relevant to incompatibility, including personal conflict, management style, cultural misalignment, lack of confidence, and inability to function within the organisational environment.

Earlier authority such as Wright v St Mary’s Hospital (1992) underscored that incompatibility entails an irreconcilable breakdown in workplace relationships due to personality differences. Importantly, caution must be exercised where incompatibility is alleged in response to employees asserting grievances, resisting unreasonable employer demands, or reacting to an intolerable work environment.

Distinguishing Incompatibility from Misconduct

A key distinction must be drawn between incompatibility (a form of incapacity) and misconduct. Misconduct involves fault—whether intentional or negligent—where an employee breaches workplace rules or standards. Incompatibility, by contrast, relates to persistent disharmony, often arising from personality conflicts rather than deliberate wrongdoing. Employers must therefore avoid treating incompatibility cases as disciplinary in nature and instead address them through counselling and remedial processes.

Procedural and Substantive Fairness in Incompatibility Dismissals

Procedural Fairness

Case law establishes that dismissals for incompatibility must adhere to the principles of natural justice. Employers are required to:

1. Investigate the cause of disharmony.
2. Advise the employee of the specific conduct causing conflict and who is affected.
3. Suggest remedial measures to resolve the incompatibility.
4. Afford the employee an opportunity to respond and attempt to correct the situation.
5. Provide reasonable time for the employee to demonstrate improvement.

The Wright case, echoed in Jabari v Telkom SA (Pty) Ltd [2006] 10 BLLR 924 (LC), affirms that employees must be given counselling and a fair chance to remove the cause of disharmony. Arbitrary dismissal or the use of pretexts such as retrenchment (as occurred in Zeda) is procedurally unfair.

Substantive Fairness

Substantive fairness requires the employer to prove objectively that incompatibility justifies dismissal. This involves demonstrating that:

• The employee’s conduct was the primary cause of workplace disharmony.
• The disharmony had a negative impact, or potential impact, on business operations.
• The conflict was irremediable despite counselling and remedial efforts.
• Dismissal was the only reasonable means to restore harmony.
• The breakdown of trust and confidence was irretrievable.

Dismissal is considered an option of last resort, justified only where the incompatibility is persistent, serious, and directly attributable to the employee.

Case Law in Practice

In Jabari, the Labour Court emphasised that employers may set reasonable standards for workplace harmony but must also prove both the existence of incompatibility and the employee’s responsibility for it. Failure to follow counselling procedures undermined the employer’s case.

In contrast, in Miyeni v Chillibush Communications (Pty) Ltd (2010) 19 CCMA 8.3.1, the CCMA upheld a dismissal for incompatibility. The Arbitrator found both procedural and substantive fairness, noting that incompatibility can be particularly significant at senior levels where employees are responsible for setting or maintaining organisational culture.

Conclusion

Incompatibility, though not expressly recognised in the LRA, is firmly established in South African case law as a form of incapacity that may justify dismissal. Employers are entitled to maintain harmonious working environments and may, as a last resort, dismiss employees whose conduct irreparably disrupts workplace relationships.

However, incompatibility remains a challenging ground to invoke, as it requires careful distinction from misconduct and strict adherence to procedural and substantive fairness requirements. Employers must exhaust counselling and mediation avenues before resorting to dismissal. Ultimately, while South African courts have recognised incompatibility as a fair reason for dismissal, they continue to place significant emphasis on fairness, reasonableness, and the protection of employee rights.

For further assistance, consult an attorney at SchoemanLaw.