A Labour Court ruling concerning an employee of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) suffering from anxiety and depression emphasized the employer's obligation to adequately adapt working conditions for employees with health issues before resorting to dismissal.
Case Details and Diagnosis
At the center of the dispute was a long-serving CPUT employee, Feroze Samaei, who successfully challenged her dismissal, which occurred during an exacerbation of her mental health problems. Samaei had worked at CPUT since 1996 and was diagnosed with anxiety and depression in 2018. Her health issues worsened with an amputation of a toe in 2021 and wrist surgery in 2023, after which she was dismissed without cause in the same year.
Following the diagnosis, clinical therapist Al-Mari Bothes conducted several assessments which indicated that her anxiety and depression negatively affected her productivity, work relationships, and ability to cope with job demands. The reports recommended ongoing psychiatric treatment, psychological counseling, occupational therapy, and regular interaction between management and the employee to determine suitable workplace accommodations.
Deficiencies in Investigation
However, the court found that no evidence was presented after November 2022 of further structured occupational therapy interventions or adoption of accommodation measures. Instead, CPUT initiated a capability review in June 2023, which ultimately led to Samaei's dismissal.
Judge Molatelo Mahura ruled that CPUT failed to properly investigate options for workplace accommodation and alternatives to dismissal before terminating Samaei's employment. He reviewed and overturned part of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) decision, which had initially deemed her dismissal substantively fair.
Court Requirements and Legal Stance
The court ordered the university to pay her the sum of R497,948, equivalent to 11 months' remuneration, plus additional compensation of one month previously awarded for procedural unfairness.
A key issue before the court was CPUT's refusal to assist Samaei in applying for medical leave after the incapacity process began. The university argued that it had provided accommodations to the employee for a long time and that she had previously declined the option of medical leave. Furthermore, it insisted there was no suitable alternative position.
Mahura rejected this stance, stating that employers have a legal obligation to explore accommodation options and alternatives during the incapacity process itself. The Judge noted: 'Medical leave is an obvious potential alternative to dismissal that must be fully explored before any decision to dismiss is made.'
Refusal to Consider Alternatives
The court concluded that CPUT refused to facilitate or consider the application because management believed Samaei had previously declined this option and viewed the request as part of a pattern of manipulative behavior. Mahura stated: 'These considerations do not constitute a valid basis for refusing to explore a potential alternative to dismissal.'
Furthermore, the court ruled that the university could not cite transfers that took place between 2015 and 2018 as proof of Samaei's accommodation, as these moves predated both her incapacity review and the medical conditions that formed the basis for dismissal. Instead, the court held that employers must consider the employee's condition within the relevant incapacity process, assessing the degree of incapacity, the possibility of reasonable accommodation, and the availability of alternatives to dismissal before ending employment.
By finding that the CCMA commissioner had misapplied the legal principles governing dismissals due to incapacity, the Labour Court substituted the finding of substantive fairness of the dismissal with a finding of substantive unfairness. Although the court declined to reinstate Samaei due to strained relations between the parties, it ruled that compensation was the appropriate remedy.
