Court bars independent use of a performance management system to terminate an employment contract

Performance management systems are usually used by employers to assess the performance and productivity of their employees. Employees who perform well are lauded while those who perform dismally are taken through disciplinary hearings that seek to address their underperformance. The disciplinary hearings usually result in an employee receiving either a warning letter or a letter terminating their employment.

20 Sep 2021 2 min read Employment Law Alert Article

At a glance

  • The case of Naomi Connie Lusiche v Barclays Bank of Kenya established that it is unlawful for employers to terminate employees solely based on the results obtained from a performance management system.
  • The court ruled that terminating an employment contract based solely on performance data from a performance management system does not constitute a valid reason under Section 45 of the Employment Act.
  • The judgment clarifies that the purpose of performance management systems is to address underperformance, identify reasons for it, and find ways to rectify it, rather than being used as a means to terminate employees. Employers should use these systems to improve employee performance rather than as a mode of firing employees.

The decision of the Employment and Labour Relations Court in the case of Naomi Connie Lusiche v Barclays Bank of Kenya [2021] eKLR has now made it unlawful for an employer to terminate the services of an employee solely on the results obtained from a performance management system.

In this case, the court opined that the use of these performance management system as a mode of terminating employees contravenes section 45 of the Employment Act, which states that no employer is allowed to terminate an employment contract without valid reasons. To this end, the court identified that terminating an employment contract purely on the performance of the employee based on data obtained from a performance management system does not constitute a valid reason to terminate the employment contract.

The court further stated that the purpose of a performance management system is not to diversify the modes of terminating an employment contract but rather to address a perceived employment failure. In addition, the court indicated that an “objective” performance management system should address three key issues; one, whether there exists an underperformance in the workplace, two, why an employee has underperformed, and three, how that underperformance may be rectified.

The impact of the judgment on employers

This decision has now clarified the purpose and role of performance management systems in the work environment. Employers should, going forward, use these systems to strengthen and improve their employees’ performance. Performance management systems should not be independently used as a mode of firing employees but their function should rather be to help the employers get the best out of their employees.

The information and material published on this website is provided for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We make every effort to ensure that the content is updated regularly and to offer the most current and accurate information. Please consult one of our lawyers on any specific legal problem or matter. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damage, whether direct or consequential, which may arise from reliance on the information contained in these pages. Please refer to our full terms and conditions. Copyright © 2024 Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr. All rights reserved. For permission to reproduce an article or publication, please contact us cliffedekkerhofmeyr@cdhlegal.com.