New ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures: What employers need to know

ACAS has launched a consultation on a new draft Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. If introduced, the revised Code would replace the version issued in 2015 and would represent the first full update since 2009. The consultation opened on 30 July 2026 and closes on 23 September 2026.

The consultation follows Acas research suggesting that formal disciplinary and grievance procedures cost UK employers an estimated £2.36 billion each year, while informal resolution costs around ten times less.

Acas has also reported that 44% of working-age adults in Britain experienced conflict at work in the last 12 months. The consultation also sits against the backdrop of significant Employment Tribunal delays and wider employment law reform under the Employment Rights Act 2025.

What is changing?

The draft Code keeps the core framework for formal disciplinary and grievance procedures. However, it places greater emphasis on what happens before a formal process begins.

Consultation questions

• 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?
• Suspending workers: Should the code include guidance on the limited circumstances in which it may be appropriate to suspend a worker?
• Next steps: Should the code prompt employers to consider a range of appropriate next steps after establishing the facts?
• Employers’ steps: 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?
• Workers’ steps: Should the code expect workers when raising a formal grievance to state what steps have been taken to resolve the issue informally?
• Replace ’employee’ with ‘worker’: Should the code use the term ‘worker’ unless the status of ’employee’ is specifically intended?
• Mediation guidance: Should the code include guidance on mediation and facilitated conversations?
• Right to be accompanied: Should the code state that it is good practice for employers to consider allowing workers to be accompanied if this is requested where the statutory right does not apply?
• Postponing meetings: Should the code include guidance on when it may be reasonable to postpone a formal disciplinary meeting for more than five working days where a companion is unavailable?
• Use of AI: Are there issues arising from the use of AI in disciplinary and grievance processes that Acas should address in the Code or associated non-statutory guidance?

Greater emphasis on informal talks

The draft Code encourages employers and workers to consider informal methods of resolving workplace issues before commencing formal disciplinary or grievance procedures. Employers would be expected to explain any informal steps already taken when inviting a worker to a disciplinary hearing, or why such steps were not appropriate. Similarly, workers raising a formal grievance would be asked to outline any informal attempts to resolve the issue and, where possible, identify the outcome they are seeking. The aim is to encourage earlier, practical resolution of workplace disputes.

A more cautious approach to suspension

Acas has reinforced that disciplinary investigations should be objective, reasonable and proportionate. The consultation proposes that suspension should only be used where necessary and in limited circumstances, reflecting the established position that suspension should not be a routine response. Unnecessary suspension can increase workplace tensions; damage working relationships and create additional cost and risk for employers.

Tackling lengthy grievance submissions

The draft Code responds to concerns about increasingly lengthy and complex grievance documents, which can delay investigations and escalate disputes. Workers are therefore encouraged to provide a concise and clear written summary of their concerns initially, with additional information to be provided later if necessary.

Right to be accompanied

The proposed guidance provides further clarity on the statutory right to be accompanied at disciplinary hearings, reflecting developments in case law. It highlights the role companions can play in helping workers understand procedures and present their case. Employers are also encouraged to consider allowing workers to be accompanied in situations where there is no legal right to it, if doing so may assist in resolving the issue.

Use of “worker” rather than “employee”

Acas proposes replacing the term “employee” with “worker” throughout most of the Code to reflect its broader application. The consultation seeks views on this change, particularly given that the employment tribunal power to adjust compensation by up to 25% for non-compliance with the Code currently applies only to employees. This, arguably, would be significant and have dramatic implications for Employer’s.

The role of AI in workplace procedures

The consultation also considers whether guidance should be introduced on the use of artificial intelligence in disciplinary and grievance processes, either within the statutory Code itself or through separate non-statutory guidance.

Additional proposals include greater emphasis on equality, diversity and inclusion, including reminders that employers must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and consider reasonable adjustments where appropriate.

Why does this matter for employers?

The headline point is that informal resolution is moving from background encouragement into the body of the statutory Code.

Tribunals can take the Code into account when deciding relevant claims, including whether any adjustment should be made to compensation. Where an employer has moved straight to a formal process without turning its mind to informal resolution, that may be difficult to justify. Non-compliance with the Code can also lead to an uplift of up to 25% in compensation. When the unfair dismissal compensatory cap is removed from 1 January 2027 procedural shortcomings of this kind may carry greater financial risk.

A shift from process to judgement

The more interesting point is that the draft Code appears to shift attention from the formal procedure itself to the management judgement exercised before that procedure begins. For years, many employers have treated disciplinary and grievance risk as something to be managed once a formal process is underway: appoint an investigator, send the invite letter, provide the right to be accompanied, hold a hearing, confirm the outcome and offer an appeal. The proposed Code suggests that may no longer be enough. The question may increasingly become: why did this become formal at all?

This is where the consultation becomes more than a procedural tidy-up. In many workplaces, the instinctive response to conflict is to make it formal: record the allegation, appoint an investigator and let the process take over. Traditionally a safer, evidence based approach. It is also often the point at which positions harden, correspondence lengthens and the prospect of a sensible resolution recedes. By the time a grievance has become a catalogue of historic complaints, the real management failure may already have happened.

The proposed Code is therefore less about informality for its own sake and more about competence. It asks whether employers can identify the difference between a concern that needs a formal legal process and a workplace issue that would be better addressed by an early conversation, mediation, facilitated discussion, management clarification or a reset of expectations. That is a more demanding standard than simply knowing which template letter to send.

That does not mean employers must always deal with concerns informally. Some issues will clearly require immediate formal action, particularly where there are serious allegations, safeguarding concerns, repeated conduct issues, risks to colleagues or clients, or a breakdown in trust and confidence. However, employers should be able to explain why they chose a formal route and why informal resolution was not suitable.

This is likely to increase the importance of good record-keeping, early management intervention and clear documentation of why informal resolution was, or was not, appropriate. Employers should review disciplinary and grievance policies, update template letters, and ensure managers understand the revised expectations. BTO can support employers with policy updates, manager training and practical guidance on handling workplace concerns.