Logan Wesnaar v Standard Bank

The applicant, Logan Wesnaar, was employed by Standard Bank from 2016 until her dismissal on 30 September 2025. She earned R33,239.97 per month. After returning from maternity and incapacity leave in February 2024, she was placed on an informal poor performance process in July 2024, which was escalated to a formal process. She worked from home due to a physical condition (kidney disease/lymphoedema). During the performance process, the applicant raised that her mental state—due to pressures from personal issues, trauma, post-partum depression and the breakdown of her marriage—affected her ability to perform. She attended the respondent’s Life Health Solutions wellness sessions and was referred for mental health support in January 2025. In October 2024 she had stated that her ‘mental state due to pressure from certain issues’ contributed to her poor performance. She was referred to an occupational therapist/consultant (Kate Powell), who reported that the applicant disclosed mental health issues in 2024, was taking medication for emotional health due to stress, and needed counselling support, but did not declare herself unfit for work. In December 2024, after the formal performance review, the applicant mentioned thoughts of self-harm and the process was paused. She was offered redeployment. In March 2025 she lodged a grievance, stating that she had mental health and chronic illness issues and that management should have supported her rather than pursuing a performance process. She was hospitalized on 10 June 2025 for psychiatric evaluation and possible heart failure. Dr Mokgatle diagnosed her with ‘depressive disorder with anxious distress’ and ongoing psychological stressors (letter dated 10 June 2025). The grievance was concluded after her discharge, and the respondent’s head of operations, Kishan Keshav, ultimately decided to dismiss her. The applicant referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, seeking reinstatement.

• Whether the dismissal was substantively fair.
• Whether the applicant prima facie had a mental condition.
• Whether the respondent was adequately notified of the applicant's mental condition.
• Whether the respondent took adequate steps to consider her mental condition before terminating her services, even though the poor performance process had already concluded.
• Whether the respondent unduly relied upon the poor performance process rather than investigating and determining if the true cause of the applicant's non-performance was her mental condition and thus instituting a medical incapacity process.
• Whether reinstatement is an appropriate remedy.

The dismissal was found to be both procedurally and substantively unfair. The applicant, Logan Wesnaar, was reinstated with effect from the date of dismissal (30 September 2025). She was awarded eight months and one week’s loss of salary in the amount of R273,596.42, to be paid by Standard Bank no later than 25 June 2026. Reinstatement to take place on 8 June 2026.

1. Where an employee raises a mental health condition during a poor work performance process, the employer is obliged to investigate whether the poor performance is attributable to medical incapacity and cannot unduly rely solely on the poor performance process to justify dismissal. 2. An employer’s duty to investigate is triggered when sufficient information is provided to put it on inquiry, even if the employee has not furnished a comprehensive formal medical report; undefined policy requirements for ‘sufficient documentation’ cannot be invoked to defeat this purpose. 3. A proper assessment of the employee’s condition must be conducted before a conclusion on dismissal for poor performance can be reached; failure to do so renders the dismissal procedurally unfair. 4. If an employer fails to investigate or disprove a mental health defense raised by an employee, it cannot conclusively prove that the employee had no defense to poor performance, and the dismissal is substantively unfair; at the very least, the mental health condition may constitute a mitigating factor warranting a sanction short of dismissal.

The commissioner observed that, even if the applicant’s mental health condition did not entirely excuse her poor performance, it could have served as a mitigating factor warranting a sanction short of dismissal. The commissioner also noted, as an incidental factual finding, that the probabilities favoured the respondent’s evidence that the applicant was offered additional training and declined it. Furthermore, the commissioner made general observations regarding the guidance offered by the Palanga decision, noting that an employer should contextualize its obligation to investigate alternative explanations for apparent poor performance and that an employee who raises mental health concerns must be allowed to make representations in that regard.

This award is significant in South African labour jurisprudence because it clarifies the interface between poor work performance and medical incapacity processes where mental health is concerned. It establishes that an employer cannot rigidly adhere to a poor performance procedure when an employee raises a mental health condition that may explain the non-performance. The award emphasizes that once an employer is put on notice of a potential mental health incapacity—through various forms of information, not only exhaustive medical reports—it has a proactive duty to investigate the extent of the incapacity before dismissing for poor performance. It further illustrates that failure to consider mental health as a mitigating factor, or to switch to an incapacity enquiry where appropriate, renders a dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair. The award applies and extends the principles in LE Franschhoek Hotel and Palanga to the poor work performance context.