Competent, Yet Incompatible

Workplace disputes are not always about misconduct or poor performance. Sometimes the difficulty lies in something far less tangible: the breakdown of workplace relationships.

South African labour law has long recognised that employment relationships are not purely transactional arrangements. While the employment contract may formally regulate the exchange of labour for remuneration, the functioning of modern workplaces depends on far more than the just the technical performance of duties. Cooperation, communication and trust between colleagues play a central role in maintaining a productive and functional working environment.

In practice, challenges sometimes arise even where an employee performs their duties competently. The difficulty may not lie in an employee’s ability to carry out their role, nor in misconduct warranting disciplinary action. Instead, tensions may arise from strained working relationships within the workplace. An employee may be capable and productive, yet their interactions with colleagues, managers, or the broader organisational environment may create persistent disharmony that disrupts the functioning of the team. For many years, our courts grappled with how such situations should be addressed, particularly whether incompatibility should be treated as misconduct, incapacity, or some other basis for termination.
The Code of Good Practice on Dismissal (2025) (“the Code”) has now addressed this uncertainty by expressly recognising incompatibility as a form of incapacity. In doing so, the Code places incompatibility alongside other incapacity-based grounds for dismissal such as poor work performance and ill health. This classification is significant because, unlike misconduct which is premised on blameworthy conduct, incompatibility does not necessarily involve fault and often arises from interpersonal dynamics that make it difficult for an employee to function effectively within the workplace environment. To this end, incompatibility reaffirms that workplaces consist of individuals whose personalities, communication styles and approaches to work do not always align. Although the conduct associated with incompatibility may not amount to misconduct, it can nevertheless have significant consequences for workplace dynamics. Persistent interpersonal conflict can undermine trust between colleagues, weaken team cohesion, and ultimately affect organisational effectiveness.

In Zeda Car Leasing (Pty) Ltd t/a Avis Fleet v Van Dyk, the Labour Appeal Court, despite being required to determine the fairness of a dismissal for operational requirements, confirmed the preferable approach to deal with incompatibility in the workplace. In this regard, the Court stated that the prevailing view is that incompatibility is a species of incapacity because it impacts on work performance. The Court further noted that incompatibility involves the inability on the part of an employee to work in harmony, either within the corporate culture of the business or with fellow employees. Importantly, the Court confirmed that in circumstances where an employee is unable to maintain (as reasonably required by the employer) an appropriate standard of relationship with his or her peers, subordinates and superiors, such failure or inability may constitute a substantively fair reason for dismissal.

In this regard, in Mgijima v Member of the Executive Council, Gauteng Department of Education and Others the Labour Court had already explored some of the potential causes of incompatibility and what this may look like in the workplace and confirmed that incompatibility may arise from factors such as personality conflicts, management style, an inability to integrate into the culture of the workplace, or a lack of confidence in the employee’s ability to perform their role in the manner expected by senior colleagues. The court further confirmed that the onus rests on the employer to show that the employee charged with incompatibility is substantially responsible for the disharmony within the workplace. Accordingly, incompatibility does not arise simply because an employer prefers a different personality or working style. Rather, it requires demonstrable conduct or patterns of interaction that materially undermine workplace relationships or operational functioning.

Situations where an employee performs their duties competently but struggles to function effectively within the relational dynamics of the workplace are not uncommon. By recognising incompatibility as a form of incapacity, the Code provides a clearer framework for addressing these situations in the most appropriate and effective manner. In line with standard incapacity procedures, this includes requiring employers to consider whether the breakdown in relationships can reasonably be addressed before dismissal is contemplated, which necessarily entails affording employees an opportunity to remedy the alleged incompatibility. Such interventions may take various forms, including counselling, mediation between employees, adjustments to reporting structures, or other measures designed to restore workable relationships within the workplace.

Employers navigating incompatibility concerns should bear the following considerations in mind:

• Incompatibility now has a home: The Code confirms that incompatibility is a form of incapacity. Employers should therefore approach any alleged incompatibility through an incapacity framework rather than a disciplinary process.
• The detail matters: Employers cannot simply assert that an employee “does not fit in.” Employees must be informed of the specific conduct or workplace interactions giving rise to the alleged incompatibility so that they can meaningfully respond to the concerns raised.
• Impact is important: Incompatibility is not about personality differences alone. Employers must be able to demonstrate that the conduct relied upon has had a genuine and material impact on the workplace or the functioning of the team.

The recognition of incompatibility reflects an evolving understanding of employment relationships; one that acknowledges that the functioning of a workplace depends not only on performance and discipline, but also on the interpersonal relationships between those who work within it. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.