Is an automatic termination clause in an employment contract valid?

“I’ve been appointed by a security company as a security officer. I did not disclose the fact that there is a pending criminal charge against me, because I have not been found guilty yet. However, the company picked up the pending charge and has now dismissed me based on a clause in my contract which states that my appointment is subject to me receiving a positive background screening result. Can they just do this?”

The type of clause which you mention as being included in your employment contract is typically referred to as an “automatic termination clause.” The validity of such a clause depends on whether it prevents an employee from exercising any right conferred on an employee by the Labour Relations Act, including for example, any limitation of an employee’s right of protection against unfair dismissal. 

It must be understood that an employer may not include a contractual clause in an employment agreement which prevents an employee from relying on his right not to be unfairly dismissed or limits the right of the employee to challenge such dismissal. That said, it is not illegal for an employer to require fulfilment of a specific condition before employment begins or for employment to terminate automatically on fulfilment of a specific condition. However, the merits of each case would have to be assessed to determine whether the automatic termination clause is valid or not.

In your case, the security company would argue that the clause was valid as a positive security vetting is an inherent requirement to the job of a security officer and that because the background screening returned a negative result in the form of pending criminal charges, the condition of a positive background screening could not be met and that your employment was fairly terminated as a result thereof. This may be further supported by the fact that the vetting process was also probably not in the control of your employer to be manipulated, but conducted by another entity such as the SAPS. Whether this argument is valid, will however have to be judged taking into account a number of factors, such as:

Your constitutional right not to be unfairly dismissed;
Your right to challenge your dismissal and whether this right has in any way, been limited or waived by the clause;
The wording of the specific clause;
The context of the job offer and employment agreement;
The inherent requirements of your position and the importance of a positive background screening; and
The reason for termination of employment and the existence of any act by the security company which was aimed at ending your employment.

Should you feel that this clause has been unfairly applied, it would be prudent to consult with a labour specialist to look into the detail of your employment contract as well as the specific circumstances of your case to advise you on whether there are grounds to challenge the automatic termination of your employment.

July 14, 2017
Out with maternity leave, in with parental leave

Out with maternity leave, in with parental leave

A landmark judgment delivered on 3 October 2025 by the Constitutional Court of South Africa has reshaped the legal landscape governing employment and family rights. In Van Wyk and Others v Minister of Employment and Labour; Commission for Gender Equality and Another v Minister of Employment and Labour and Others (CCT 308/23) [2025] ZACC 20, the Court declared several provisions of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (“BCEA”) and the Unemployment Insurance Act 63 of 2001 (“UIF Act”) invalid and inconsistent with the Constitution in that they unfairly discriminate between different classes of parents.

AI regulation on the horizon

AI regulation on the horizon

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming industries, and everyday life. We now live in an era where information cannot be trusted at face value, and content creation blurs the lines between reality and fiction. With such a dangerous capability literally at anyone’s fingertips, it is normal to wonder whether AI is being regulated in South Africa. In this article, we look at the current position regarding AI in South Africa.

The tax distinction between local and foreign dividends

The tax distinction between local and foreign dividends

Dividends from South African resident companies fall under the dividends tax regime and are subject to a 20% withholding tax in terms of section 64E of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (“Act”), known as dividends tax, rather than normal income tax. In contrast, foreign dividends are included in a taxpayer’s gross income unless relief is available under section 10B of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, which provides a full or partial participation exemption depending on certain circumstances. In this article, we unpack the important distinction in the tax treatment of local vs foreign dividends in South Africa.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest