HR Hub

The ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures is to be updated.

ACAS states that when employment relations go wrong, it costs the UK economy over £2 billion a year. Handling concerns early in a way that is fair, transparent and timely has big benefits for everyone, with costs of informal resolution ten times lower than that of formal. This consultation, says ACAS, ‘starts a conversation about how we can disagree better at work’.

The code was last fully revised in 2009. It currently applies where there is potential for disciplinary action to be taken against a worker or a worker raises a formal concern or grievance with their employer.

Details of the new consultation can be accessed here and the draft code can be accessed here. The consultation lasts until 23 September 2026.

By way of reminder, the Code provides guidance to employers, workers and representatives on handling disciplinary and grievance situations in the workplace. An unreasonable failure to comply with the Code may lead to an increase (or reduction) in any tribunal award by up to 25%.

The current Code focuses on how employers should conduct formal disciplinary and grievance processes. The proposed revision takes a much broader approach, placing greater emphasis on early intervention, informal resolution and conflict prevention. The focus is a significant shift away from formal processes and towards the earlier, informal resolution of workplace concerns.

Some of the notable changes include the following:

• Informal resolution moves inside the Code. It currently sits only in the Foreword. Once inside the Code, an unreasonable failure to attempt early informal resolution could attract the up-to-25% tribunal uplift for the first time. The Code recognises that an informal approach will not always be appropriate, e.g. in cases of potential gross misconduct or other serious issues, which should still be handled using a formal disciplinary procedure.
• Disciplinary invitation letters (and employees’ grievance letters) will need to state what informal steps were taken — or why none were.
• Suspension remains available, but the draft reinforces that it should not be a default response and should be carefully considered and reviewed.
• For the first time, the Code expressly references avoiding unlawful discrimination and considering reasonable adjustments during disciplinary and grievance processes.
• In recognition of widespread concerns about recent trends towards unnecessarily long and complex grievances being raised, the Code also includes new guidance to encourage workers to initially provide a short, clearly written explanation of their concern.
• ‘Worker’ replaces ‘employee’ throughout, widening the Code’s scope. However, a tribunal’s power to adjust awards by up to 25% for unreasonable failure to follow the Code only applies to employees, not the wider worker category.
• The 5 working-day rule on postponing a meeting because a companion isn’t available is softened for cases that could end in dismissal (effectively incorporating Talon Engineering v Smith into the Code itself).

There are some specific issues on which ACAS is especially keen to hear views:

Resolving concerns informally

• Should the Code encourage the informal resolution of employer concerns about worker misconduct or unsatisfactory performance?
• Should the Code encourage the informal resolution of concerns that workers raise with their employers?

Language and tone

• Does the language used in the Code strike the right tone to encourage the early resolution of employer and worker concerns?
• Should the current title of the Code be retained?

Principles of fairness

• Do the principles in para. 7-9 of the Code set out reasonable expectations for all users of it?

Adaptations to the Code’s principles and steps

• Does para. 3 of the Code get the balance right in recognising that tribunals will take the size and resources of an employer into account and that it may sometimes not be practicable for all employers to take all of the steps set out in the Code?
• Does para. 4 of the Code get the balance right in stating that where other legal requirements need to be applied alongside the Code, the Code should always be followed to the extent that is reasonably possible?

Avoiding discrimination

• Is the Code clear about the need to avoid unlawful discrimination when resolving concerns at work?

Training

• Should the Code state that it is good practice to provide training and support to help managers, workers and representatives build skills and confidence to resolve concerns early and effectively?

Formal disciplinary procedures

• Is the Code's guidance (para.24-26) on fact finding helpful to avoid unnecessary escalation of concerns into formal disciplinary procedures?
• Should the Code (para. 28) include guidance on the limited circumstances in which it may be appropriate to suspend a worker?
• Should the Code (para. 30) include good practice guidance on communicating a decision to suspend a worker?
• Should the Code prompt employers to consider a range of appropriate next steps after establishing the facts (para. 31)?
• Should the Code prompt employers to consider other next steps after a formal disciplinary meeting in addition to considering formal disciplinary action (para. 42)?
• Should the Code expect employers to state what steps have been taken to resolve the issue informally when notifying a worker of a formal disciplinary meeting (para. 32)?

Formal grievance procedures

• Should the Code state that, if possible, workers should set out in their grievance how they would like their concern to be resolved (para 63)?
• Should the Code expect workers when raising a formal grievance to state what steps have been taken to resolve the issue informally (para. 63)?
• Should the Code state that a short, clear written explanation of the concern will often be enough information to provide when initially raising a formal grievance (para. 64)?

Accompaniment at informal and formal meetings

• Is the Code's guidance on the statutory right of accompaniment sufficiently clear?
• Should the Code (para. 86) include guidance on when it may be reasonable to postpone a formal disciplinary meeting for more than 5 working days where a companion is unavailable?
• Should the Code (para. 10 and 81) state that it is good practice for employers to consider allowing accompaniment if this is requested where the statutory right does not apply?

Mediation and facilitated conversations

• Should the Code include guidance on mediation and facilitated conversations (para. 90-95)?

Employee/worker terminology

• Should the Code use the term 'worker' unless the status of 'employee' is specifically intended?

Artificial intelligence

• Are there issues arising from the use of AI in disciplinary and grievance processes that should be addressed in the Code or associated non-statutory guidance?