Acas consultation: draft Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures

30 July 2026

Foreword: Fixing the friction

Healthy, constructive employment relations can be transformative – for individuals and organisations alike. When employers and workers work together well the results are productivity, growth and wellbeing. When it goes wrong, the costs to all are high: formal disciplinary and grievance procedures cost UK employers an estimated £2.36 billion a year – and rising. 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.

That is why we are consulting on a new draft Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. This consultation starts a conversation about how we can disagree better at work. Concerns and disagreement are a natural part of working life, but we can shape whether it tends towards escalation or resolution. Employers and workers each have rights and responsibilities. Our draft Code is clear that both need to raise and handle concerns in ways that are fair, transparent, and timely.

This conversation comes at a time of broad social, economic and demographic shifts in the workplace. There are significant changes in how we think about where and when work happens, how it fits into our lives, and crucially, how we engage with one another as colleagues. This year new Acas research on the prevalence of individual conflict at work showed 44% of working-age adults in Great Britain experienced conflict at work in the last 12 months.

Many concerns at work are low-level and don’t need to be resolved through formal procedures. Trying to resolve matters informally first is usually the best approach and benefits everyone involved.

When concerns are not addressed in an appropriate way, they do not simply disappear – they can evolve into bigger issues that can be harder and more costly to resolve.

People disengage, problems fester, dismissals and resignations can result - all cost employers and workers financially and emotionally. Every statistic relates to a real person and real challenges, with impacts for their life, the success of their employer and the economy. The UK is not alone - these figures are symptomatic of a wider global unease in workplace relations. But we could be the best in reducing these costs and resolving differences quickly, openly and amicably.

Our Code has a critical role in a wider reset to build good workplace relations at the heart of the economy. Alongside development of skills, improving knowledge and confidence in handling concerns and conflict effectively is vital.

If you are an employer, worker, representative, work in HR or employment law, or anyone with an interest in good working relations, we want to hear from you. We want to hear from organisations of all shapes and sizes and workers of all lived experiences. We want to hear whether our Code is proportionate to all employers’ needs and helps everyone make the very best endeavours to resolve differences.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Introduction

Why we are consulting

Acas is updating its statutory Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures to promote better the early resolution of concerns in the workplace.

This aligns with the ambitions of Acas’s Strategy 2025 to 2030 to help employers and workers prevent, manage and resolve conflict, avoiding escalation and saving time, money and stress.

In accordance with section 200 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, Acas is now publishing the draft Code for public consultation. We will consider any feedback made to us about it and may then modify the draft accordingly. If we determine to proceed with the updated draft Code, it will be presented to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade. If they approve it, the updated Code will be laid before Parliament.

Background

The Code was last fully revised in 2009. Further specific amendments were made in 2015 to the guidance on the statutory right to accompaniment in the Code.

The Code provides employers, workers and representatives with short, principles-based guidance. It is a basis for organisations’ own internal policies and procedures. Employment tribunals must take the Code into account in relevant cases and can, in some types of claims, increase or reduce an award by up to 25% for unreasonable failure to follow the Code by an employer or employee.

The draft Code on which we are seeking views in this consultation has benefited from the expertise and scrutiny of employer representatives, worker representatives and independent members of the Acas Council.

Alongside the existing Code, Acas currently provides non-statutory guidance on disciplinary and grievance procedures which sets out additional guidelines on the law and good practice for employers, workers and representatives. This guidance will also be reviewed and updated in line with revisions to the Code.

Comments are invited on all aspects of the draft Code. However, there are some specific issues on which Acas is especially keen to hear your views. These are set out in the consultation questions.

We strongly encourage you to read the draft Code in full before responding to the consultation.

Consultation details

Issued: 30 July 2026

Respond by: 11:59pm on 23 September 2026

If you have any questions about the consultation, email consultations@acas.org.uk

We welcome contributions from all interested individuals and organisations. This includes employers, workers, trade unions, business representative groups, legal representatives, and any other bodies or individuals with an interest in workplace dispute resolution and good employment relations.

How to respond

Use our online form to respond to the consultation

Alternatively, you can download the consultation questions in Microsoft Word format and email your response to consultations@acas.org.uk:

• consultation questions – responding as an individual (DOCX, 66KB)
• consultation questions – responding as an employer or organisation (DOCX, 71KB)

If you need to submit your response in another way, email consultations@acas.org.uk

To make your submission as helpful as possible, please:

• read the draft Code and this consultation document in full before responding
• keep your response concise and to the point – we suggest a limit of 500 words for each open text question
• keep your response as plain text only – the online form does not support hyperlinks, tables or images

Confidentiality and data protection

Information you provide in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication, release to other parties or to disclosure in accordance with UK access to information legislation – primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

If you want information, including personal data that you provide, to be treated as confidential, please be aware that under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice that public authorities must comply with. This deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence.

In view of this, please explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation. We cannot, however, give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on Acas.

Acas will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA. Your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

We may use artificial intelligence (AI) tools, to help process and analyse consultation responses. This will be limited to identifying themes, grouping similar responses, and supporting our analysis. Decisions will not be based solely on AI analysis of responses. All responses will be reviewed and considered by Acas staff.

The AI tools will only be used for the purposes of this consultation. They will not be applied to your personal data for any unrelated purposes.

Consultation questions

The following questions relate to the draft Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures.

We strongly encourage you to read the draft Code in full before responding to the consultation.

Resolving concerns informally

The focus of the existing Code is formal disciplinary and grievance procedures. While its Foreword provides some brief guidance on resolving matters informally before using formal procedures, this does not form part of the statutory Code.

The draft Code explicitly encourages early and informal resolution wherever possible – including addressing employer concerns informally (paragraphs 16 to 23) and raising and handling workers' concerns informally (paragraphs 53 to 61).

Adding this guidance in the draft Code will mean that it will be taken into account by employment tribunals in relevant cases, including to inform the potential adjustment of awards for unreasonable failure to follow the Code.

In line with Acas's research findings (for example, see Defining and enabling informal workplace conflict resolution (2025)), the draft Code suggests a range of steps that may help resolve concerns informally. It seeks to avoid overly formalising informal approaches and clarifies that an informal approach should never by itself result in formal disciplinary action.

It suggests it can be helpful for both employers and workers to discuss concerns informally with a worker representative at an early stage to help facilitate solutions. (Note: workers being accompanied at informal conversations is covered later in this consultation document.)

The draft Code suggests that written confirmation of the outcome of an informal approach can sometimes be of mutual benefit to employer and worker and makes this optional. Acas will provide further guidance on this in non-statutory guidance.

We are interested to hear views on whether the draft Code strikes the right balance in providing guidance on how employers and workers can try to resolve concerns informally while not being overly prescriptive.

Language and tone of the Code

Acas research on Defining and enabling informal workplace conflict resolution finds that appropriate choice of language is important for enabling constructive dialogue and creating a trusting environment conducive to effective early resolution. We have therefore reviewed the language in the existing Code to move towards a less adversarial and legalistic tone (for example, reviewing language such as 'a case to answer', 'allegations’, 'adjourn', 'penalty', and 'first offence').  

A key change is that the draft Code refers to employer and worker 'concerns' rather than 'disciplinary' and 'grievance' issues when describing informal resolution. We have not entirely departed from the language of 'disciplinary' and 'grievance' in the Code given that, for example, the statutory right of accompaniment is defined using these terms (section 10 Employment Relations Act 1999). We have therefore retained these for clarity but limited their use to describing formal procedures. 

Our review of language in the Code raises the question whether its title should also be changed. The scope of the draft Code is now wider than formal disciplinary and grievance procedures, however the Code is already widely embedded in organisational policies and changing its title may cause confusion. We welcome views on this and suggestions for an alternative title for the Code.

Principles of fairness

The existing Code sets out basic principles for dealing with disciplinary and grievance issues fairly (see paragraph 4 of the existing Code). The draft Code retains these principles while updating them with a view to promoting early and informal resolution (paragraphs 7 to 9). It includes a new expectation that employers and workers should aim to resolve concerns early and prevent unnecessary escalation of conflict. It also states that both employers and workers should deal with issues promptly and not unreasonably delay conversations, meetings or decisions.  

Our aim is that these principles set reasonable expectations, including on timeliness, which can be applied in every organisation large and small – including by SMEs, microbusinesses and individuals without ready access to legal advice – and which employment tribunals can apply consistently in relevant cases. 

Reasonable adaptations to the principles and steps in the Code

The existing Code explains that it may be reasonable to adapt its guidance in certain situations. It explains that employment tribunals will take the size and resources of an employer into account in relevant cases (which reflects section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996).    

The draft Code sets out principles and standards of reasonable behaviour which it explains should apply 'in most situations' (paragraph 2). It retains a reference to employer size and resources (paragraph 3) and explains it may not be practicable for all employers to take all steps in the Code in every case.  

The draft Code also refers (paragraph 4) to other legal requirements which may need to be applied alongside the Code, for example the UK Market Abuse Regulation which may require adherence to procedures for formal market-sensitive announcements. In recognition that there may be a need to adapt its guidance in such situations, the Code states it should always be followed to the extent that is reasonably possible.   

Avoiding unlawful discrimination

The existing Code does not reference rights or obligations under the Equality Act 2010 which may apply when employers and workers are raising and handling workplace concerns. This includes the legal obligation to make reasonable adjustments for a worker with a disability. Employers must also ensure processes and procedures do not unlawfully discriminate against individuals in other ways.

These rights and obligations exist alongside and separately to the Code and are explained in detail in a statutory Employment Code of Practice by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. However, our stakeholder engagement has found broad support for the Acas Code reminding users of the importance of equality and inclusion when raising and handling workplace concerns.  

The draft Code therefore includes new guidance on this (paragraphs 14 to 15) which is signposted at relevant points throughout the Code. It gives illustrative examples of adjustments that could be needed, depending on circumstances, to ensure a fair process. It also encourages workers to discuss as early as possible with their employer any adjustments they believe may be needed.  

Training

Acas research has highlighted the importance of conflict handling skills and confidence for the effective early resolution of concerns at work. (See for example, Managing individual conflict in the contemporary British workplace and Managing conflict at work – policy, procedure and informal resolution.)

The draft Code includes an encouragement for employers to provide training and support to help managers, workers and representatives build the skills and confidence needed to resolve concerns early and effectively (paragraph 13). It describes this as 'good practice' rather than an expectation ('should') in recognition that the availability of training may depend, for example, on an employer's resources.  

Formal disciplinary procedures

While the draft Code retains the basic steps on formal disciplinary procedures from the existing Code, a growing body of research shows that poorly handled investigations can negatively impact individuals, managers, HR colleagues, and witnesses, reducing opportunities for early and constructive resolution. (See for example Managing conflict at work – policy, procedure and informal resolution.) 

The draft Code (paragraphs 24 to 26) therefore places emphasis on a fact-finding process being objective, reasonable, proportionate and aimed towards considering appropriate options for resolving an issue.  

Suspensions during disciplinary investigations can also sometimes be used rigidly. If used inappropriately or by default, suspensions can be costly for organisations, escalate tensions and have significant negative impacts on individuals, colleagues and their work environment. (See for example Resolving workplace disputes in SMEs – qualitative research with employers.)

The existing Code implies suspension should only be used where necessary but does not provide further guidance on this. The draft Code provides additional guidance on suspensions to make it clear they should only be used in limited circumstances (paragraph 28) and provides good practice guidance on informing a worker that they are to be suspended (paragraph 30). 

While formal disciplinary procedures can provide a helpful and appropriate framework of mutual benefit for employers and workers, they can also risk people feeling 'locked into' escalating the issue through formal steps, missing opportunities for alternative approaches to resolution such as mediation.  

To help avoid unnecessary or inappropriate use of formal procedures, the draft Code builds in consideration of a range of potential appropriate next steps towards resolution after the initial fact-finding (paragraph 31) and after a formal disciplinary meeting (paragraphs 37 to 42). 

To further encourage employers to consider and use options for informal resolution, the draft Code introduces a new expectation for employers to state, when notifying a worker of a formal disciplinary meeting, what prior steps have been taken to resolve the matter informally. Where no steps were taken, the employer should state the reason for that. Other aspects of this notification in the existing Code have been retained (paragraph 32).

Formal grievance procedures

The draft Code retains the basic steps set out in the existing Code which should, in general, be followed when formal grievance procedures are used.  

It adds new guidance (paragraph 63) requiring workers to suggest, if possible, how they would like their concern to be resolved at the point of raising a written grievance, rather than simply 'allowing' this during a formal grievance meeting as in the existing Code. This is intended to encourage workers to consider how their concern may be practically resolved and help workers and employers find a satisfactory resolution.

The draft Code also introduces a new expectation for workers when raising a written grievance to state what prior steps have been taken to resolve the matter informally, or where no steps were taken the reason for that (paragraph 63). (This mirrors an equivalent new expectation for employers, see Q15.)

Some stakeholders – including both employer and worker representatives – have shared concerns with Acas about what they see as a trend towards unnecessarily long and complex written grievances, which can cause delays in responding to and resolving concerns and can escalate tensions. The draft Code adds guidance to encourage workers to provide initially a short, clear written explanation of their concern (paragraph 64), adding that the employer should take the concern seriously and allow the worker an opportunity to provide more information later if needed (paragraph 67).

Accompaniment at informal and formal meetings  

Workers who are required or invited to attend a formal disciplinary or grievance meeting have a statutory right to be accompanied where they make a reasonable request. Their companion may be a colleague, a trade union representative, or a trade union official (section 10, Employment Relations Act 1999).  

The existing Code provides guidance on this statutory right in two places, once in its guidance on disciplinary procedures and again in its guidance on grievance procedures. As this guidance is largely duplicative, the new draft Code brings it together in one section to reduce repetition. This section is signposted at relevant junctures throughout the Code. Paragraphs 82 to 85 and 87 to 88 retain the guidance on this statutory right as set out in the existing Code, with phrasing revised to improve the clarity of explanation for the general user.

Paragraph 86 adds new guidance to reflect an important case law development from 2018 (Talon Engineering Ltd v Smith) which is currently noted in the non-statutory Foreword to existing Code. This made clear that, in some situations, an employer should consider allowing a longer time for a rearranged meeting than 5 working days where a companion is unavailable – as specified by the statutory right of accompaniment – as an unreasonable refusal to postpone a disciplinary meeting may make a dismissal unfair.  

While the addition of this guidance adds some complexity to the Code, we consider that including this will help employers and workers be aware of this important consideration in handling procedures that may result in dismissal.  

The extension of the draft Code to cover the informal resolution of employers' and workers' concerns raises the question of accompaniment at meetings and conversations where the statutory right does not apply.  

The draft Code explains that companions can bring benefits such as helping workers to understand processes and express themselves clearly, which can help employers and workers resolve concerns fairly and effectively (paragraphs 10 and 77). 

It states that if a worker requests to be accompanied where the statutory right does not apply, it is good practice to consider whether allowing this could help resolve the issue and leaves the decision on this to the employer's discretion (paragraphs 10 and 81).

Acas is aware that the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade is currently conducting a review of the statutory right of accompaniment. We will consider any recommendations from that review when finalising the draft Code.

Mediation and facilitated conversations

Mediation and facilitated conversations can help resolve certain types of workplace disputes but are not mentioned in the existing Code. Acas research on Managing individual conflict has found that mediation is not widely used as a resolution option.  

The draft Code includes a new section on these processes (paragraphs 90 to 95, and see paragraphs 19, 31, 42, 58 and 69). Some employers, for example small businesses, may lack the resource to offer mediation or facilitated conversations and the draft Code acknowledges this while encouraging the use of these processes where possible.

Employee/worker terminology

The existing Code uses the term 'employee' throughout other than when referring to the statutory right of accompaniment which applies to all 'workers'. We consider it is good practice for organisations to follow the Code's guidance in relation to both workers and employees. As the term 'worker' includes both those with the employment status of 'employee' as well as 'worker', the draft Code uses the term 'worker' in most instances, other than where the specific status of 'employee' is intended (paragraph 4).

We are interested to hear whether this change in terminology might have any unintended consequences – noting, for example, that the power for employment tribunals to adjust awards by up to 25 per cent for unreasonable failure to comply with the Code applies only to employees (section 207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992).

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Stakeholders have raised questions about the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in disciplinary and grievance processes. We welcome views on any benefits, risks or practical issues that the Acas Code or associated non-statutory guidance may need to address on this.

About you

Acas may want to contact respondents to discuss their response in more detail.

To understand the views and experiences of certain groups, we'd like to ask some additional questions about your personal characteristics.

These questions are optional and will be used for monitoring and analysis purposes only. This will enable us to group your responses with responses from people who share similar characteristics for analysis and reporting.

You can leave them blank and select 'Submit form'.

Access to personal information will be restricted to those who need it for the purposes of administering and analysing the consultation. You will not be personally identifiable in any results we publish.

If you are answering on behalf of someone else, please enter information about the personal characteristics of that person. 

Respond to this consultation

Use our online form to respond to the consultation