A phishing incident that causes real operational damage is understandably frustrating for any director. But employment law in England does not automatically allow dismissal simply because an employee clicked a malicious link, even if the consequences were serious. The key question in law is whether the employee’s conduct truly amounts to gross misconduct or negligence, and whether a fair disciplinary process has been followed. Below is how UK employment law and HR practice usually approach this situation. The reality of phishing risk in organisations Even trained employees still fall for phishing Phishing remains one of the most successful cyber-attack methods worldwide. Security authorities such as the National Cyber Security Centre regularly warn that attackers deliberately design emails to appear legitimate and bypass employee awareness training. Even well-trained staff can be deceived because phishing messages often imitate: suppliers internal colleagues IT departments invoices or payment notifications For this reason, cybersecurity frameworks generally treat phishing as a systemic risk, not purely an individual failure. Understanding gross misconduct in UK employment law What qualifies as gross misconduct In UK employment practice, gross misconduct usually involves deliberate or extremely reckless behaviour. Examples commonly include: theft or fraud violence or harassment serious breaches of safety rules deliberate misuse of company systems Simply making a mistake—even a costly one—does not always meet this threshold. Employment guidance from bodies such as ACAS emphasises that disciplinary action must be fair, reasonable and proportionate. Why dismissing the employee may be risky A dismissal could be considered unfair If the employee has worked for the company two years or more, they usually have the right to claim unfair dismissal. An employment tribunal would typically ask: Was the employee deliberately reckless? Was the training adequate and recent? Were company systems reasonably secure? Were other employees disciplined similarly for mistakes? Did the employer follow a proper disciplinary process? If the phishing attack resulted from a genuine mistake, dismissal might be judged disproportionate. The employer’s responsibility for cyber security Organisations must expect human error Cybersecurity frameworks assume employees will occasionally make mistakes. The National Cyber Security Centre recommends organisations implement layered protections such as: email filtering multi-factor authentication network monitoring endpoint security tools These controls help prevent a single click from leading to major network compromise. From a legal perspective, tribunals may ask whether the company relied too heavily on employee judgement alone. A more appropriate response in many cases Conduct a proper disciplinary investigation Instead of immediate dismissal, employers typically: Investigate the incident thoroughly Hold a formal disciplinary meeting Assess whether policies were breached Consider mitigating factors Possible outcomes may include: additional training written warnings changes to security procedures This approach demonstrates that the company acted reasonably. Situations where dismissal might be justified When it could become gross negligence Dismissal may be more defensible if the employee: knowingly ignored clear security warnings bypassed mandatory security procedures repeated similar behaviour after prior warnings deliberately violated company IT policies In such cases, the issue is no longer a mistake but reckless disregard for security rules. Even then, a formal disciplinary process must still be followed. Steps directors should take after a phishing incident Strengthen the company’s cyber defences Rather than focusing solely on the employee, many organisations use incidents as learning opportunities. Common improvements include: stronger email filtering systems simulated phishing training exercises improved network segmentation faster incident detection This reduces the likelihood of a similar attack causing major disruption again. Expert HR guidance Employment specialists often advise that cybersecurity incidents involving employee mistakes should be handled carefully because: honest mistakes are not usually gross misconduct disciplinary decisions must be proportionate employers must follow ACAS disciplinary procedures Failing to do so can expose the company to employment tribunal claims. Advertisement Bestseller #1 2026 Newest WiFi Extender, WiFi Booster, WiFi Extender Booster, Covers Up to 3950 Sq.ft and 50 Devices, Internet Booster – with Ethernet Port, Quick Setup, Home Wireless Signal Booster, UK plug 【Super Signal Coverage】High Speed and High range coverage to boost the wireless coverage in all WLAN networks ,Extend Wi… 【Three-in-one access mode】Our WiFi Booster supports three access modes: repeater mode, routing mode, and AP mode. You ca… 【Wide Compatibility】Compatible with any wireless network devices that comply with the aggrement of 802.11N/B/G, Router, … £15.95 Buy on Amazon Key legal points Dismissal is possible but not automatic You may legally dismiss an employee if their conduct truly amounts to gross misconduct, but clicking a phishing email—by itself—rarely meets that threshold. The safer legal approach is: investigate the incident follow formal disciplinary procedures consider whether the behaviour was reckless or simply an error This protects the company from unfair dismissal claims while still addressing the seriousness of the breach. Final perspective It is understandable to feel angry when a cyber incident costs money and disrupts operations. But modern cybersecurity practice recognises that human error is inevitable. Strong organisations design systems that limit the damage of mistakes rather than relying on perfect employee behaviour. In many cases, improving security controls and reinforcing training will protect the business far more effectively than dismissing one employee. Post navigation You An English Cyber Security Manager and Think One of the Employees is Up To No Good: What Next? My English Company Was Hacked and Now I am Considering The Costs of Future Proofing