Gross Misconduct: Examples & Dismissal Rules 2026

Incidents of gross misconduct at work often require a prompt response, particularly where there are safety, safeguarding or security concerns. At the same time, disciplinary action in this context carries significant legal exposure. Employers are generally best protected where they follow a fair procedure aligned with the ACAS Code of Practice and respect the employee’s procedural rights. Failure to address gross misconduct in a timely and lawful manner can damage reputation, morale and productivity and may result in tribunal proceedings.

In this guide, we explain what gross misconduct means, how to handle gross misconduct issues and the risks for employers when taking an employee through a disciplinary and dismissal procedure due to misconduct.

Section A: What Is Gross Misconduct in UK Employment Law?

Gross misconduct relates to the most severe breaches of workplace standards of behaviour that are sufficiently serious to potentially justify instant dismissal. The term is commonly used where an employer is considering dismissal without notice, known as summary dismissal. However, describing conduct as “gross” does not make dismissal automatic. The legal risk usually arises from how the employer investigates, assesses and documents the decision rather than from the label alone.

1. What is gross misconduct?

While ‘ordinary’ misconduct involves breaches of workplace rules such as persistent lateness or minor performance issues, gross misconduct concerns behaviour that is so serious it undermines the employment relationship. In practice, it refers to conduct capable of justifying dismissal without notice, provided a fair disciplinary process is followed.

Gross misconduct usually involves serious wrongdoing, a fundamental breach of trust or conduct that creates significant risk to people, property or the organisation’s standing. Examples include theft, fraud, physical violence, deliberate damage to company property, bullying, serious health and safety breaches, incapacity in the workplace due to drugs or alcohol and serious insubordination. Context remains central. An employment tribunal will assess the facts, the impact, any mitigating factors and whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.

Organisations should set out what they consider to constitute gross misconduct and clearly explain expected standards of behaviour and potential consequences. That information is usually contained within an employee handbook or disciplinary policy. Drafting is important, but consistent application is more significant. Inconsistent treatment, rushed conclusions or weak evidence frequently form the basis of unfair dismissal or discrimination claims.

2. Is gross misconduct defined in law?

UK legislation does not provide a fixed statutory list of what amounts to gross misconduct. Instead, the concept is applied through the general law on dismissal, including the Employment Rights Act 1996. Tribunals consider whether the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances. That includes whether the employer held a genuine belief in the employee’s guilt, whether there were reasonable grounds for that belief and whether the investigation carried out was reasonable in scope.

Where an employer relies on gross misconduct to dismiss without notice, the employer will also need to justify withholding contractual or statutory notice pay and demonstrate that dismissal was a proportionate response to the conduct established.

3. Does gross misconduct always lead to dismissal?

Gross misconduct can justify dismissal, but it does not automatically result in dismissal. Employers often have a range of potential outcomes depending on the seriousness of the conduct, the employee’s role, previous disciplinary history, mitigating factors and whether trust can realistically be rebuilt.

In some situations, similar conduct may justify dismissal in one workplace but not in another, particularly where regulatory duties, safeguarding obligations or health and safety risks differ. Even where the allegation appears serious, a dismissal decision will be scrutinised against the standard of what a reasonable employer could have decided on the evidence available at the time. A fair and properly documented procedure remains central to reducing tribunal risk.

Section B: What Constitutes Gross Misconduct?

Whether conduct amounts to gross misconduct depends on the facts, the contractual framework and the impact on the employment relationship. Employers often include a non-exhaustive list of examples in their disciplinary policy, but tribunals will look beyond the wording of the policy and examine what actually happened, how serious it was and whether dismissal was a reasonable response.

Gross misconduct may arise from a deliberate act or from gross negligence. The key question is whether the conduct is serious enough to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence between employer and employee. Context, seniority and the nature of the business all influence that assessment. Employers often search for clear gross misconduct examples, but tribunals assess each case on its own facts rather than by reference to a fixed checklist.

1. Violent or Offensive Behaviour

Acts of violence, threats of violence or aggressive and intimidating conduct are commonly treated as gross misconduct. Physical assaults, serious bullying and harassment or threatening behaviour towards colleagues, customers or members of the public will often justify dismissal, particularly where safeguarding or health and safety obligations are engaged.

2. Theft and Fraud

Theft and fraud represent fundamental breaches of trust. Examples include stealing company stock or money, falsifying expense claims or manipulating financial records. In addition to disciplinary consequences, such conduct may expose the individual to criminal investigation. In roles involving financial responsibility or access to sensitive assets, even relatively small losses can justify serious sanction because of the breach of trust involved.

3. Alcohol and Drug Misuse

Incapacity at work due to alcohol or illegal drugs, buying or selling drugs while at work or possessing drugs in the workplace are frequently treated as gross misconduct. The seriousness will depend on the role and the risk profile of the organisation. In safety-critical environments, a single incident may be sufficient to justify dismissal, whereas in other settings employers may consider support measures alongside disciplinary action.

4. Damage to Company Property

Deliberate damage to company property is commonly categorised as gross misconduct. Damage caused through extreme carelessness may also fall into this category where the degree of negligence is serious and results in significant loss or risk. The assessment will usually focus on the extent of the damage and whether the conduct demonstrates a disregard for basic standards.

5. Gross Negligence

Gross negligence refers to a serious lack of care in carrying out duties. Even where there is no intention to cause harm, conduct that exposes others to serious risk or causes substantial loss may be treated as gross misconduct. The level of responsibility held by the employee and the foreseeability of the harm are relevant factors.

6. Serious Insubordination

Refusal to follow a lawful and reasonable instruction can amount to gross misconduct where it seriously undermines authority or operational effectiveness. Persistent or serious defiance that breaks trust between employer and employee may justify dismissal, particularly where the instruction relates to safety, compliance or regulatory duties.

7. Serious Health and Safety Breaches

Employees have a duty to cooperate with their employer on health and safety matters and to take reasonable care for their own safety and that of others. Breaching safety rules in a way that places people at risk of harm may be treated as gross misconduct. Repeated refusal to follow safety processes when operating machinery or handling hazardous materials will often meet that threshold.

Employers should review disciplinary policies periodically to ensure they reflect current risks, including issues such as online conduct, misuse of social media and inappropriate use of confidential information. At the same time, a policy list does not replace individual assessment. Tribunals focus on proportionality and consistency. Conduct labelled as gross misconduct in a handbook will still be examined against the facts and the reasonableness of the employer’s decision.

Section C: Can an Employer Dismiss for Gross Misconduct Without Notice?

Gross misconduct is most often associated with dismissal without notice. In legal terms, that is summary dismissal. Where conduct is sufficiently serious, an employer may be entitled to terminate employment immediately and without notice pay. The entitlement does not arise simply because the allegation is serious. It arises only where the facts established justify that outcome and where a fair process has been followed.

Tribunals examine both substance and procedure. Even where the underlying conduct appears strong, a dismissal can be found unfair if the investigation is inadequate, the hearing is mishandled or the decision falls outside the range of reasonable responses.

1. What is summary dismissal?

Summary dismissal is termination without notice or payment in lieu of notice because the employee has committed a repudiatory breach of contract. In practice, this means the employer is asserting that the conduct was so serious that it justified immediate termination. If that assessment is wrong, the employer may face a claim for wrongful dismissal for unpaid notice, in addition to any claim for unfair dismissal.

2. Is a disciplinary procedure still required?

A fair procedure remains central, even in cases that appear clear-cut. Employers should follow their internal disciplinary procedure and align with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The usual steps include a reasonable investigation, written notification of allegations, a disciplinary hearing and the opportunity to appeal.

Employees have the right to be informed of the allegations in sufficient detail, to see the evidence relied upon and to be accompanied at a hearing. Failure to follow a fair process can result in a finding of unfair dismissal, and tribunals can increase compensation by up to 25 percent where the ACAS Code has not been followed.

3. What does a reasonable investigation involve?

Before deciding on dismissal, employers are expected to establish the facts as far as reasonably practicable. That will usually involve reviewing documents, interviewing witnesses and giving the employee the opportunity to respond. In more serious cases, employers may consider suspension on full pay while an investigation is carried out, particularly where there are concerns about safety, interference with evidence or ongoing risk. Suspension should be presented as a neutral step rather than a disciplinary sanction in itself.

An investigation should be proportionate to the seriousness of the allegation. It is not necessary to prove misconduct beyond reasonable doubt, but there should be reasonable grounds for believing the employee committed the act in question based on the evidence gathered.

4. How does proportionality affect the decision?

Once the investigation and hearing are complete, the employer must decide whether dismissal falls within the range of reasonable responses. That assessment involves considering the seriousness of the conduct, the employee’s disciplinary record, length of service, mitigating factors and the impact on the organisation.

In some cases, dismissal will be justified. In others, a final written warning or alternative sanction may be appropriate. A tribunal will not substitute its own view simply because it would have reached a different decision. It will ask whether the employer’s decision was one that a reasonable employer could have made in those circumstances.

5. What practical steps should employers take during an investigation?

An investigation should begin promptly once allegations are raised. The employee should be notified in writing of the allegations and informed that an investigation is underway. In serious cases, written confirmation should outline the nature of the concerns and confirm that no conclusions have yet been reached.

Investigations should gather relevant documentary, digital and witness evidence. This may include emails, attendance records, performance data, access logs or CCTV footage. Where digital or video evidence is relied upon, it should be preserved securely and reviewed carefully to ensure context is properly understood.

Witnesses should be interviewed separately and asked to provide factual accounts rather than opinion. Notes should be taken contemporaneously and retained. Where appropriate, signed statements may be obtained. The employee accused of misconduct should also be interviewed as part of the investigation stage, not only at the disciplinary hearing.

In more serious matters, it is prudent to appoint an investigator who has not been directly involved in the events in question. Independence strengthens defensibility if the decision is later scrutinised.

Accurate record-keeping throughout the investigation is central. Tribunals often focus on documentation when assessing whether the employer acted reasonably.

6. What happens at a disciplinary hearing?

If the investigation establishes a case to answer, the employee should be invited in writing to a disciplinary hearing. The invitation should clearly set out the allegations, confirm that gross misconduct is being considered where applicable and provide copies of the evidence relied upon.

The employee has the right to be accompanied by a trade union representative or a colleague. The hearing should be conducted by a manager who has not led the investigation. At the hearing, the employer should explain the allegations and evidence, and the employee should be given a full opportunity to respond, ask questions and present mitigating factors.

Where witnesses attend, questioning should remain orderly and focused on facts. If new evidence arises during the hearing, the meeting may be adjourned to allow further investigation.

After considering all evidence, the decision-maker should deliberate in private and record the reasoning behind the final decision. The outcome should be confirmed in writing, setting out the findings, the sanction imposed and the right of appeal. An appeal should be heard by someone not previously involved in the case wherever possible.

7. Are there alternatives to dismissal?

Although gross misconduct can justify dismissal, dismissal is not the only possible outcome. Employers should assess whether a lesser sanction falls within the range of reasonable responses. Depending on the circumstances, this may include a final written warning, demotion, redeployment or other disciplinary measures.

The employee’s disciplinary history, length of service, level of responsibility and any mitigating circumstances should be taken into account. In some cases, particularly where litigation risk is high or relationships have irretrievably broken down, employers may consider resolution through a settlement agreement.

Demonstrating that alternative outcomes were genuinely considered strengthens the proportionality assessment if the matter proceeds to tribunal.

Section D: Gross Misconduct, Unfair Dismissal and Tribunal Risk

Allegations of gross misconduct frequently end in litigation not because the conduct was trivial, but because the process or reasoning was flawed. The legal framework sits primarily within the Employment Rights Act 1996, which protects eligible employees from unfair dismissal. Where dismissal is challenged, the tribunal will assess both the reason for dismissal and whether the employer acted reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient to justify termination.

Gross misconduct cases therefore carry dual exposure. Employers may face claims for unfair dismissal where the process was defective or disproportionate, and claims for wrongful dismissal where notice was withheld without a sufficient contractual basis.

1. Unfair dismissal risk

Employees with the required qualifying service can bring a claim for unfair dismissal if they consider the decision unfair. The tribunal will examine whether the employer had a genuine belief in the employee’s guilt, whether there were reasonable grounds for that belief and whether a reasonable investigation was carried out. It will then assess whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.

Where procedural shortcomings are identified, compensation may be increased if the employer failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice. Even where the misconduct is proven, procedural errors can significantly increase financial exposure. In higher-risk cases, some employers consider resolution through a settlement agreement where continued litigation exposure outweighs the benefit of defending the claim.

2. Wrongful dismissal and notice pay

Wrongful dismissal is a contractual claim. It arises where an employer dismisses without giving notice and the conduct relied upon does not amount to a fundamental breach of contract. In gross misconduct cases, the dispute often centres on whether the threshold for summary dismissal was genuinely met. If it was not, the employer may be liable for unpaid notice and associated contractual entitlements.

3. Discrimination and consistency concerns

Disciplinary action must also comply with the Equality Act 2010. If an employee argues that the decision was influenced by a protected characteristic such as age, race, disability, religion or sex, the claim may proceed regardless of length of service. Inconsistent treatment between employees can strengthen such arguments. Employers should therefore ensure that comparable cases are treated consistently and that any departures from previous outcomes are clearly justified.

4. Constructive dismissal exposure

Gross misconduct processes can also lead to claims of constructive dismissal where an employee resigns in response to serious procedural failings. Allegations of bias, pre-determination or public humiliation may be relied upon as evidence that trust and confidence were breached by the employer rather than by the employee.

From a governance perspective, the most defensible decisions are those supported by clear evidence, proportionate reasoning and thorough documentation. Tribunals do not expect perfection, but they do expect a structured and fair approach. Where disciplinary decisions are rushed, inconsistent or poorly recorded, exposure increases significantly. It should also be noted that some dismissals are treated as automatically unfair regardless of length of service, including dismissals connected to whistleblowing, health and safety activities or certain statutory rights. In those cases, the employer cannot rely on qualifying service as a defence, which increases the importance of careful procedural handling.

5. Common employer mistakes in gross misconduct cases

The most frequent errors in gross misconduct cases arise from procedural weaknesses rather than from misunderstanding the seriousness of the conduct. Inadequate investigation, failure to disclose evidence properly, inconsistent treatment between employees and pre-determined decision-making are common tribunal findings.

Employers also expose themselves where documentation is sparse or where internal procedures are not followed. Departing from a published disciplinary policy without clear justification can undermine the credibility of the decision.

Another recurring issue is treating suspension as a disciplinary penalty rather than a neutral holding measure. Prolonged or poorly explained suspension can itself become a source of dispute.

Careful planning, structured documentation and measured decision-making significantly reduce these risks.

6. Why a disciplinary policy matters

A well-drafted disciplinary policy provides the framework within which gross misconduct cases are assessed. The policy should define misconduct and gross misconduct on a non-exhaustive basis, explain investigation stages, outline hearing procedures and confirm appeal rights.

Clarity protects both employer and employee. It reduces the risk of arbitrary decision-making and supports consistency across similar cases. Tribunals frequently examine whether the employer followed its own policy and whether employees were aware of the standards expected of them.

Policies should be reviewed periodically to reflect evolving risks such as online conduct, misuse of confidential information and remote working environments. Regular review strengthens defensibility where serious allegations arise.

Section E: What Does Gross Misconduct Mean for Employees?

For employees, an allegation of gross misconduct raises immediate concerns about job security, reputation and future employment prospects. The term itself can sound definitive, but the practical consequences depend on the facts, the procedure followed and the final outcome. Not every allegation results in dismissal, and not every dismissal closes off future opportunities.

1. How long does gross misconduct stay on your record?

There is no national register of gross misconduct findings and no central database that future employers can automatically access. Disciplinary findings are internal to the employer. If an employee is dismissed for gross misconduct, the employer will retain records in line with its data retention policy and data protection obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR.

Retention periods vary, but employers commonly retain disciplinary records for several years, particularly where dismissal was involved. Former employees may have the right to request access to personal data held about them, subject to lawful exemptions. Such requests are commonly made through a subject access request under data protection legislation.

2. Will dismissal for gross misconduct affect references?

Employers are not generally obliged to provide a detailed reference unless contractually required to do so. Where a reference is given, it should be fair and accurate. An employer may state that the individual was dismissed for gross misconduct if that is factually correct and can be supported by evidence. However, many organisations adopt a standard reference policy confirming only dates of employment and job title.

If an inaccurate or misleading reference is provided, the former employee may have legal remedies. The risk for employers lies in overstating allegations or referring to matters that were not properly established.

3. Can an employee challenge dismissal for gross misconduct?

Employees have the right to appeal internally against a disciplinary decision. An appeal should normally be heard by someone who was not involved in the original decision. Where internal processes are exhausted, eligible employees may bring a claim for unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal within the applicable time limits.

In some circumstances, claims may also arise for wrongful dismissal if notice pay was withheld without sufficient contractual justification. Time limits for tribunal claims are short, so early advice is often prudent.

4. Can gross misconduct be downgraded?

An allegation initially framed as gross misconduct may, following investigation and hearing, result in a lesser finding. Employers are expected to assess the evidence objectively. Where mitigating factors are strong or the evidence does not support the highest level of sanction, alternative outcomes such as a final written warning may be appropriate.

For employees, engagement with the process, presenting evidence clearly and raising any relevant context can materially affect the outcome.

For both employers and employees, the practical reality is that gross misconduct decisions are rarely about the label alone. The defensibility of the outcome usually turns on the quality of the investigation, the fairness of the hearing and the reasoning behind the final decision.

Section F: Summary

Gross misconduct refers to behaviour so serious that it can justify dismissal without notice. The concept is not defined by a fixed statutory list. Instead, tribunals assess whether the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances, taking into account the seriousness of the conduct, the evidence available and the procedure followed.

For employers, the principal risk lies not only in identifying conduct as gross misconduct but in how the matter is investigated and determined. A flawed investigation, inconsistent treatment or a rushed hearing can expose the organisation to claims for unfair or wrongful dismissal. Alignment with the ACAS Code of Practice and careful documentation remain central to defensibility.

For employees, dismissal for gross misconduct does not create a permanent public record. References should be fair and accurate, and internal appeal rights are available. Where procedural failings or disproportionate decisions arise, legal remedies may be available within strict time limits.

In practice, gross misconduct cases turn on evidence, proportionality and process. Clear policies, consistent application and careful reasoning reduce risk on both sides of the employment relationship.

Section G: Need Assistance?

DavidsonMorris advise employers on managing gross misconduct cases, workplace investigations and dismissal decisions in line with UK employment law. If you require guidance on disciplinary procedures, policy drafting or defending tribunal claims, you can contact us for tailored support.

Section H: FAQs

What is gross misconduct?

Gross misconduct is serious behaviour that fundamentally breaches the employment relationship and can justify dismissal without notice, provided a fair procedure is followed.

Does gross misconduct always lead to dismissal?

While gross misconduct can justify dismissal, employers should still assess proportionality, mitigating factors and consistency before deciding on the appropriate outcome.

Is a disciplinary hearing required for gross misconduct?

Employers are expected to carry out a reasonable investigation, notify the employee of the allegations and hold a disciplinary hearing before reaching a decision.

Can I be suspended for gross misconduct?

Suspension on full pay may be used while an investigation is carried out, particularly where there are safety or evidential concerns. Suspension should be treated as a neutral step rather than a disciplinary sanction.

How long do I have to bring an unfair dismissal claim?

Time limits for bringing a claim in the Employment Tribunal are short and usually begin from the effective date of termination. Early advice is advisable where dismissal is being considered or challenged.

Will dismissal for gross misconduct affect future employment?

There is no central register of gross misconduct. Future impact depends largely on the content of any reference provided and the circumstances of the dismissal.

Section I: Glossary

Section J: Useful Links