Skip to main content

Not Up to Scratch: Poor Performance in the Workplace

Employers are often confronted with their employees’ lacking performance and uncertainty often arises regarding the proper way of addressing such situations. This in turn results in employees not being afforded an opportunity to bring their performance up to the required standard and employers finding themselves on the wrong side of a labour dispute.

There is a vast difference in the procedure for dealing with misconduct versus that of poor performance. 

Misconduct relates to the employee’s unacceptable behaviour or the breaking of a company rule. It requires disciplinary action and, in the case of serious misconduct such as stealing or assault, may even lead to dismissal. Poor work performance on the other hand relates to an employee’s inability to meet set standards and required levels of performance.

An employer’s duty in dealing with a case of poor performance is somewhat onerous and it is not just a case of showing the employee the door – unless the employer favours a visit to the CCMA. Should it appear that an employee lacks the ability to meet required performance standards, the employer is obliged to provide a measure of assistance. 

Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act (the Code of Good Practice) provides certain guidelines when dealing with dismissals for poor work performance. The Code stipulates three aspects to be considered when deciding whether a dismissal for poor work performance is fair:
  • Whether the employee was aware or could reasonably be expected to be aware of the required performance standard;
  • Whether the employee was given a fair opportunity to meet the required performance standard; and
  • Whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction for not meeting the required performance standard.
The employer must therefore firstly ensure that all employees are made aware of its expectations, standards and targets. Should it appear that an employee fails to meet such standards, the employer must meet with such employee and inform them of the failure. The parties should then try and establish the cause thereof. It may be work-related, such as working conditions, or even personal circumstances such as a traumatising event in the family. The employer is expected to provide assistance, training and counselling to the employee and give the employee a proper opportunity to rectify the situation. 

Should the employee still fail to meet the required standards, alternatives to dismissal such as a demotion or alternative position must still be considered by the employer, subject to its operational requirements. Should you have a need to review your work performance standards, as well as the mechanisms in place to enforce such standards, we at Hinrichsen Attorneys are always able to assist with your employment law requirements.




Prepared by Chinette De Beer

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An Introduction to Hinrichsen Attorneys

In 2012, Dale Hinrichsen made the transition from being an advocate and member of the Pretoria Society of Advocates to becoming an admitted attorney. It was thereafter that Hinrichsen Attorneys was formed and begun its expeditious climb to becoming one of the highest regarded law firms on the West Rand. While Hinrichsen Attorneys, like most small firms, started out by applying its operations to all the general aspects of law, helping individuals with personal disputes and family law as well as aiding smaller companies with contract drafting, collections and general litigation. The first branch of specificity came in the form of mining law, whereby the firm developed a strong allegiance to an impressive array of mining experts and consultants. It was hereafter that the firm began to pursue more specialised fields, which served as a catalyst to accelerate its already exponential growth. Utilising the business world’s dire need for a world class corporate law firm on

Directorship, Employment or Both?

When one considers the relationship between directorship and employment, various unseen issues can arise.   One of the major aspects, that few business owners consider, is that a Director is also an employee, and therefore the laws that govern such an employee will also govern the Director in his or her capacity as an employee. This creates complications that are often overlooked. The central issue revolves around one person wearing two hats, being that of director and employee. Specifically, the question is whether such a person can resign as director whilst remaining an employee of the company.

Appointing a Chairperson to Your Board

When a company wishes to appoint a non-executive (or alternatively, a non-CEO) chairperson to oversee the board of directors, it is important to be cognisant of the guidelines set out in the the King Code on Corporate Governance for South Africa (The Institute of Directors in Southern Africa) September 2009 (otherwise referred to as "King III").