Disabled employees' experiences of workplace conflict

Martin Mitchell, Mary McKaskill, Katy Robertson, Charlotte Bessant, and Alicia Brown – The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen).

How we respond to disability and health conditions is becoming an increasingly important test of effective workplace relations. Sir Charlie Mayfield's Keep Britain Working report describes a 'quiet but urgent crisis': not only are many disabled people excluded from work, but too often the support needed to prevent problems and help employees with health conditions remain in work is not in place. These gaps can result in workplace conflict.

This research speaks directly to that reality. Acas commissioned it to better understand how conflict arises in these contexts, and what supports its prevention and resolution. It was prompted by our 2025 conflict prevalence survey, which showed that disabled employees are significantly more likely to experience conflict at work: 68% of those whose condition has a substantial impact on their day-to-day activities, compared with a British average of 44%.

These are stark findings. This follow-up study addresses questions raised by the survey by examining why disabled employees appear to be more vulnerable to workplace conflict and filling important gaps in the evidence base.

The study found that:

Workplace conflict arose where requests for support were questioned, particularly for those with non-visible or fluctuating conditions

In some cases, disability-related needs were not well understood. Even where reasonable adjustments were in place, problems could persist where they were not well managed, increasing the risk of escalation.

Employees with disabilities that have a substantial impact on daily life were especially exposed to conflict

This reflected the greater complexity of meeting more significant or ongoing support needs, and more frequent interactions with management on:

• adjustments
• sickness absence
• flexible working
• performance

Each of these created potential points of friction.

Early, informed support is associated with more effective prevention and resolution of workplace conflict

Line managers play a pivotal role, with conflict less likely to escalate where they:

• respond promptly
• engage collaboratively with support needs
• have both the knowledge and interpersonal capability to manage these discussions effectively

However, this was not the typical experience for those interviewed.

Drawing on these and other findings, alongside our wider evidence base and practical experience supporting employers and employees, a number of implications for policy and practice appear particularly salient to Acas. These include the importance of the following:

Strengthening processes following disability disclosure

This includes:

• agreeing how information is shared
• involving line managers appropriately
• proactively identifying and implementing support

Encouraging disclosure remains crucial, but these findings indicate that it is not sufficient on its own.

Improving employer capability to implement and sustain reasonable adjustments

This includes strengthening understanding of a wider range of disabilities and ensuring that adjustments are managed as ongoing, collaborative arrangements rather than one-off decisions. The findings also highlight the importance of how adjustments are documented and managed within teams, recognising that adjustments must be reasonable and workable in context.

Recognising routine management processes as key intervention points

Processes such as sickness absence management, flexible working requests and performance discussions are critical for all employees but may be particularly important for disabled staff. Framing these as opportunities to explore support needs may help prevent escalation.

Supporting line managers to balance policy application with flexibility and good judgement

This includes building the skills required to manage disability and conflict together, while ensuring that policies support consistent application without constraining appropriate flexibility. Overly rigid or 'one size fits all' approaches are unlikely to be effective – nor is a lack of clarity about the roles of employees, line managers and HR.

Further exploring the potential for early, informal forms of resolution in cases involving disability-related conflict

The findings tentatively suggest this is an area that may merit further exploration. The findings are consistent with Acas's ambition to support healthier employment relations by championing inclusive workplaces and advocating for what works. This includes the effective use of reasonable adjustments to help people stay in work and thrive, a central theme of this study.

The importance of these issues has never been greater. Official statistics on the employment of disabled people show that nearly one in 4 working-age people were classed as disabled in 2025, including 5.5 million disabled people in employment. At the same time, disability discrimination has become an increasingly significant workplace issue. According to our annual report 2025 to 2026, Acas received more than 28,000 disability discrimination early conciliation notifications, accounting for 19% of all notifications, up from fewer than one in 10 at the start of the decade. These trends underscore the importance of understanding how disability-related conflict arises and what supports its prevention and resolution.

More broadly, the findings should be understood within the context of shared responsibility for sustaining effective working relationships. Employers and managers play a critical role in providing appropriate support. Employees also have a role in communicating their needs and engaging with agreed adjustments. While representatives can support constructive dialogue and resolution.

This study provides valuable insight into one side of that picture by drawing on employee perspectives. Further research, particularly with managers, would help build a fuller understanding of how these different roles interact in practice to shape the emergence, prevention and resolution of workplace conflict.

Julie Dennis

Head of Inclusive Workplace Policy and Strategy

Acas

This report presents findings from a qualitative study based on 30 interviews with disabled employees who both:

• participated in Acas's 2025 conflict prevalence survey
• reported disability-related workplace conflict in the previous 12 months

It explores how and why disabled employees report higher levels of workplace conflict than the overall average among working-age adults in Great Britain.

How and why does workplace conflict arise and escalate for disabled employees?

Conflict was driven less by the disabilities or conditions themselves, and more by how employers responded to them, across all employees in this study. This includes those with physical, mental, cognitive and neurodivergent disabilities and long-term health conditions.

This highlights the importance of management responses and workplace practices alongside disclosure. This is especially true of employees with non-visible, fluctuating or poorly-understood conditions, who were particularly vulnerable to workplace conflict that was challenging to resolve.

Challenges associated with reasonable adjustments were a key driver of conflict. Employees described:

• unsympathetic management
• difficulties securing flexible working
• delays or refusals over specialist equipment
• reasonable adjustments that were informal, temporary, imposed without consultation, or treated as an inconvenience

Employees said conflicts they experienced escalated when managers failed to act early after it arose. Formal management processes – such as disciplinary and grievance procedures, sickness absence management, and performance processes – tended to intensify tensions after trust had already broken down. This underlines the importance of earlier, informal intervention before issues entered formal processes.

Workplace conflict had serious consequences for employees. These included:

• worsening mental and physical health
• reduced confidence
• financial insecurity
• deciding to leave work altogether, in some cases

Employees also described wider organisational costs, including damaged trust, poorer working relationships, lower productivity, and increased staff turnover.

How do experiences of workplace conflict differ by the impact of disability and organisational context?

Experiences of conflict varied more by the extent to which disabilities impacted employees' daily lives, and by organisational context, than by sector (where this research did not find notable differences).

Managers at times misread disabled employees' support needs as personal failings, exposing employees to bullying, discrimination, misconduct processes and negative changes to terms and conditions. Where employees' disability or condition also limited the energy they had to challenge poor treatment, this increased their vulnerability to such outcomes.

In small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) organisations, limited HR capacity left employees reliant on informal relationships with their managers. In larger organisations, by contrast, employees perceived HR as inaccessible and unsupportive.

Employees with major-impact, long-term physical, mental, and cognitive disabilities, as well as forms of neurodivergence with a substantial impact on daily life (for example poliomyelitis, arthritis, scoliosis, cerebral palsy, bipolar disorder, and autism) were especially vulnerable because they were more likely to need substantial ongoing adjustments.

What strategies and interventions are effective in preventing and resolving workplace conflict involving disabled people?

The research findings suggest that effective conflict prevention and resolution depended on addressing disability-related needs early, constructively and with informed third-party support where needed.

Line managers were pivotal in shaping whether conflict was prevented or contained. Conflict was less likely to escalate when:

• they responded promptly
• they engaged openly with requests for reasonable adjustments and flexible working arrangements
• employees could access trusted support

Employees highlighted the need for managers to have both knowledge of disabilities and possible reasonable adjustments, and the interpersonal skills to support employees after they disclosed their disability.

Effective practice included:

• proactively explaining available support
• discussing adjustments collaboratively
• using formal systems to implement support and ensure that it was sustained over time

The findings also point to the need for clearer, more coordinated roles across senior managers, line managers and particularly HR, in preventing and resolving conflict.

For Acas, the findings highlight limited awareness of its support offer among participants in this study, with Acas not featuring as part of the support routes they drew on, particularly at earlier stages of conflict.

This report presents the findings from a qualitative study conducted by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), which explored how and why disabled employees experience conflict at work. Conflict at work is defined as 'disagreements, disputes, or difficult relationships at work, including both one-off incidents and ongoing situations'.

The research involved in-depth interviews with 30 disabled employees who had previously taken part in Acas's 2025 conflict prevalence survey – delivered via the NatCen Opinion Panel – and reported experiencing workplace conflict (Appendix 1 provides further details).

The survey found that 44% of working-age adults in Great Britain had experienced conflict at work in the previous 12 months. Disabled employees experienced significantly higher rates – particularly those whose disability has a major impact on their daily lives (68%), but also among those for whom it has a minor impact (49%). This first group also reported higher-than-average levels of conflict in 4 specific areas:

• bullying, discrimination, and harassment (40%, compared to 22% overall)
• sickness absence (26%, compared to 6%)
• employment terms and conditions (26%, compared to 16%)
• misconduct (21%, compared to 13%)

The survey also found that disabled employees experienced more conflict with line managers (38%, compared to 29% of non-disabled employees).

While these findings show the scale of the issue, they do not explain why or how conflict arises for disabled employees. In response, Acas commissioned NatCen to conduct this qualitative follow-up study with a sample of disabled survey respondents, to explore the context, nature, and drivers of their experiences in more depth.

Research questions

There were 4 sets of research questions for this study (more fully detailed in the Technical Appendix):

1. How and why do disabled employees experience workplace conflict, and what factors influence its escalation or resolution?
2. How do experiences of workplace conflict differ across types of disability and conflict contexts?
3. What are the impacts of workplace conflict on disabled employees and employers, and how can these be mitigated?
4. What strategies and interventions are effective for preventing and resolving workplace conflict involving disabled people?

Because research findings interlink and overlap, we organise them thematically across the following 3 chapters, with cross-referencing between chapters to minimise duplication where research questions span multiple areas:

• Chapter 1 presents the main analysis of how and why disabled employees experience conflict (research question 1), alongside evidence on escalation dynamics and impacts (research question 3) – it also introduces relevant differences across contexts (research question 2)
• Chapter 2 explores variation in experiences in more detail, focusing on differences by disability impact, and workplace context (research question 2), and drawing out implications for line manager capability
• Chapter 3 focuses on effective strategies for prevention and resolution (research question 4), including implications for Acas support
• A final Conclusion chapter reviews the findings in the round

Methodology and sample

Recruitment, sampling, data collection and analysis are summarised here, with full details provided in the Technical Appendix.

Recruitment

Participants were recruited from respondents to Acas's 2025 conflict prevalence survey. To be eligible for invitation, respondents had to:

• have a disability or long-term health condition that affected their daily life ('a lot' or 'a little')
• have experienced workplace conflict in the previous 12 months

A total of 441 survey respondents met these criteria, 152 of whom were willing to take part in an interview and confirmed that the conflict they experienced:

• was with an employer, manager, someone they managed or worked with (not a wider conflict)
• was solely or partly related to their disability (not other issues)

Technical Appendix Table A1 provides further details.

The research team used quota-based, purposive sampling to select 30 participants from these 152. Quotas were set by:

• age
• disability type
• impact on daily life
• whether the conflict was resolved
• employer awareness of the employee's disability

Technical Appendix Table A2 provides details of the recruitment process and achieved qualitative sample.

It should be noted that managers, HR, senior leadership and non-disabled colleagues did not participate in this study. However, we discuss disabled employees' views and experiences of these different actors.

Participants reported a range of physical, mental, and cognitive disabilities, as well as long-term health conditions and forms of neurodivergence. Appendix Table A3 details these in full.

Participants' disabilities were classified as 'major impact' where they reported their disability affected daily life 'a lot', and 'lower impact' where it affected daily life 'a little':

'Major impact' disabilities included long-term physical, mental and cognitive disabilities, as well as forms of neurodivergence with a substantial impact on daily life. Examples included poliomyelitis, arthritis, scoliosis, cerebral palsy, bipolar disorder, and autism. The category also included employees with multiple disabilities, for example, an employee with lupus, fibromyalgia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

'Lower impact' disabilities were those where participants reported a more limited effect on their daily life. These included mental health conditions that fluctuated or were manageable through medication, counselling, or other therapies (for example, anxiety, depression, and PTSD).

There was some crossover between conditions participants described as higher or lower impact. This included forms of neurodivergence, with some autistic participants and those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) describing their condition as lower impact. One employee with epilepsy also classified their condition as lower impact because it was well controlled with medication.

Data collection and analysis

Researchers conducted interviews with participants online using MS Teams or by telephone and lasted up to one hour. Researchers used topic guides of discussion themes and prompts that were based on the research questions. Researchers conducted thematic analysis of the data using the 'framework' approach. The Technical Appendix includes the topic guide and further information on the analysis process.

Summary of findings:

• disclosure of a disability to HR or a line manager did not consistently lead to reasonable adjustments or conflict being prevented
• employees made decisions about disclosing their disability based on whether they expected to be treated with compassion and understanding, or feared stigma
• employees attributed workplace conflict to unsympathetic management, limited understanding of disabilities, and the trivialisation of their disability-related needs
• disputes over reasonable adjustments, flexible working arrangements and specialist equipment were recurring sources of conflict
• conflict escalated over time due to managerial inaction, lack of effective early resolution, and limited employee confidence in HR or formal processes
• workplace conflict had serious emotional, physical, career and financial impacts on employees, alongside reduced productivity, and increased staff turnover for employers

1.1 How does disability disclosure affect workplace conflict?

Equality legislation in Great Britain aims to protect disabled employees from discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable adjustments where needed. In practice, this often relies on employees disclosing their disability to their employer. However, even where employers were aware of an employee's disability, or the employee actively disclosed it, this did not always lead to the reasonable adjustments the employee felt they needed. There were also employees who never felt able to disclose their disability. Patterns of disclosure and how they affected workplace conflict are discussed later in this section.

First, there were employees whose disability was known to the employer without them actively disclosing because it was visible or they worked in a family-run business.

Other employees were cautious about who they told about their disability or long-term condition. They sought to limit disclosure, often sharing this information only with senior management or HR, either during recruitment or when their condition or health worsened.

Employees felt that limiting disclosure to senior managers or HR was safer because they expected that these people would have greater awareness of equality legislation and legal requirements to prevent disability discrimination. They expected HR and senior management to support them if other colleagues or their line managers were less sympathetic.

However, this approach meant that there were cases where line managers were not necessarily made aware of employees' disabilities, which, in turn, meant they were less able to understand why reasonable adjustments were needed or how to implement them appropriately. It was not always clear what action, if any, employees wanted HR or senior management to take.

There were instances where senior colleagues or HR shared information about an employee's disability with line managers, to explain why reasonable adjustments were needed, but without the employee's explicit consent. While there were employees who found this disclosure helpful, others felt strongly that it was a breach of confidentiality. This, in turn, generated further conflict. This finding highlights the importance of clarifying with employees what actions they wish to take place after disclosing their disability, including whether they intend for HR and senior managers to share this knowledge more widely.

Other employees disclosed their disability or condition more widely themselves, including to their line managers and colleagues. This happened either early in their working relationship (for example, during recruitment) or later, prompted by a deterioration in their health, the confirmation of a diagnosis, or the emergence of conflict at work.

Autistic participants and those with ADHD tended to wait to disclose until they had received a formal diagnosis. This was because they feared that their condition would not be taken seriously or would be questioned without one.

A final group did not disclose at all due to fears of negative reactions from managers or colleagues, which could leave their support needs unmet. Employees shared that experiences from past employment, where managers were not compassionate and colleagues were resentful towards reasonable adjustments, shaped their fear of disclosure. This group included participants with depression or anxiety, as well as those with multiple or less- visible conditions (for example, Crohn's, fibromyalgia, ME, ADHD). Despite perceived greater public awareness of mental health conditions and neurodivergence, participants still anticipated stigma, resentment, or their condition being trivialised. Employees reflected, however, that non‑disclosure could also lead to conflict and worsening health, exacerbated by employers' lack of understanding about changes in their behaviour or performance.

Overall, the findings related to whether and how employees disclose their disability at work emphasised the importance of senior managers and HR creating a workplace culture where:

• employees feel safe to disclose their disability
• they believe their colleagues will treat them with compassion, dignity and respect

1.2 How and why do disabled people experience workplace conflict?

Where disabled employees disclosed their disability or condition, there were a variety of reasons they experienced workplace conflict. These reasons included:

• managers who disabled employees considered 'unsympathetic' to their needs
• conflicts related to requesting, managing, and (not) providing reasonable adjustments
• colleagues' resentful reactions to the adjustments

1.2.1 Conflict arising from unsympathetic management

Employees described managers and colleagues who they felt lacked 'compassion' and understanding of disability, pain, fatigue, mental health conditions or neurodivergence, which led to conflict. Additionally, employees felt that conflict occurred because their managers were unwilling to appropriately engage with how their conditions affected them.

Employees reported that their experiences were trivialised, with comparisons made to everyday experiences, such as tiredness or stress, which disregarded the specific and disabling nature of their conditions. One participant explained:

"And when you talk about fatigue, people say, 'Oh, well, I get tired, you know', and it's just very different. Neuro fatigue is very different to normal tiredness. You know, you can't push through. Pushing through is in fact the worst thing you can do" (Interview 16, voluntary sector employee with a physical health condition, affecting daily life a little, SME employer)

Other examples included:

• managers questioning the need for disabled parking spaces
• making jokes about disabilities
• suggesting that employees were being 'lazy' or 'picky' about the work they could do

Employees said these managers' views undermined their confidence in requesting reasonable adjustments, made them feel undervalued, and led to disagreements over which tasks the employee was able to do.

Employees with mental health conditions were particularly subjected to conflicts that stemmed from prevailing organisational cultures and managers who did not take the conditions seriously. In some settings, employees reported feeling unable to raise mental health concerns at all, especially where workplace cultures emphasised stoicism, resilience or 'pushing through' difficulties:

"I couldn't believe that she just was talking to me like that… really dismissive… just that lack of understanding and empathy" (Interview 23, public sector employee with a mental health condition, affecting daily life a little, large employer)

Neurodivergent employees described experiencing unsympathetic management, linked to misunderstandings of behaviours associated with their condition and requests for a formal diagnosis before reasonable adjustments were applied – despite this not being a strict requirement under the Equality Act.

One employee with ADHD, a neurological condition, and mental health conditions, explained that she found it difficult to organise her workload and would often forget tasks, and that her approach to work could seem 'chaotic'. At the time of interview, she had recently been formally diagnosed with ADHD. She had repeatedly requested administrative support, but felt her employer did not properly engage with this request without a formal diagnosis. This contributed to her anxiety, as she described regularly feeling that she was 'falling behind'. Following her diagnosis, she felt more confident about obtaining support, although discussions with her employer were ongoing.

Similarly, employees with specific learning difficulties, particularly dyslexia, described workplace conflict arising from managers making negative assumptions about their capability, rather than exploring support options. Additionally, employees shared experiences of their managers deciding which reasonable adjustments should be made for them, without adequate consultation. This led to arguments and a worsening relationship between them and management, with employees saying they felt ignored, undervalued, patronised, and isolated.

For example, in one case, a dyslexic employee explained that she would read aloud to spell out words. When colleagues complained about this, her manager made a unilateral decision to move her desk into a separate space she described as a 'cupboard'. She said that this made her feel as though she was being deliberately isolated from colleagues:

"She just decided all the time what she thought was best for me… I felt really isolated" (Interview 1, public sector employee with a cognitive disability, affecting daily life a lot, large employer)

Employees also described managers being unsympathetic towards disabilities that were not visible, such as mental health conditions, as well as physical disabilities where the severity of symptoms fluctuated. They said that managers sometimes responded with suspicion when the employees' symptoms worsened or changed.

In some cases, employees said disagreements over changing needs escalated into outright hostility, including verbal abuse. Some employees said that they felt their condition or mental health had been used against them to suggest they were incapable of doing their job due to inconsistency in their symptoms.

1.2.2 Conflict related to requesting and managing flexible working

Conflict also arose when employees requested flexible working arrangements that employers or managers either refused or subjected to a lengthy approval process. This included requests to work from home, flexible or reduced hours, or relief from specific tasks.

Participants with conditions including fibromyalgia, lupus, long covid, restless leg syndrome, and those recovering from cancer, described pressure to attend the workplace even when symptoms made this difficult. Requests for flexibility, such as home working, were resisted:

"I still feel like under pressure that I should be going [in]. And sometimes I force myself to go and, and then obviously ... I'm so tired, I'm not very productive" (Interview 29, neurodivergent public sector employee with physical health conditions, affecting daily life a lot, large employer)

The consequences of inflexible working agreements and poor management of reasonable adjustments are described in Section 1.3.

Employees also reflected that requesting reasonable adjustments was, at times, considered a performance or capability issue. This particularly applied to neurodivergent employees and those with less visible conditions where employees perceived that employers or managers lacked practical understanding of how roles could be adjusted.

Employees' requests for sensory or environmental support were sometimes refused by employers on the basis that customer-facing roles, such as retail settings or reception work, inherently required tolerance of noise, pace, or social interaction, leaving employees without workable adjustments.

The end of covid pandemic‑related homeworking arrangements was a source of workplace conflict over flexible working requests.

Disabled employees described being required to return to the workplace for a set number of days each week, despite feeling they had demonstrated they could work effectively from home during the pandemic.

As this research draws on employee accounts, it does not assess how far employers considered individual needs or the organisational rationale for such policies. However, employees reported feeling that their needs relating to their disabilities or conditions were not fully understood in these decisions, or that organisations did not clearly communicate the rationale for returning to office-based working.

This caused them stress and anxiety, especially when office attendance worsened symptoms. For example, one employee described the impact of office working on their fatigue:

"So, I was working from home and for a certain amount … then we had to return to the office … occasionally it is possible but more often it's not possible, and I just feel like sometimes ... I'm not being understood" (Interview 19, neurodivergent voluntary sector employee with physical health conditions, affecting daily life a lot, SME employer)

Disagreements with employees about how often it was possible for them to attend drove their conflict. For example, the employee above noted that her managers sometimes made sarcastic remarks about 'never seeing' her, which made her feel worse about her job and her condition.

1.2.3 Conflict caused by lack of provision and misuse of specialist equipment

In some cases, delays in providing reasonable adjustments, rather than their absence, caused conflicts. This included, for example, delays in access to agreed specialist equipment such as specially-designed chairs or tables, ear defenders, or screen-reading overlays.

Employees described conflicts arising where managers or employers denied their requests for specialist equipment, and when there were delays in receiving it. This led to employee frustration, difficulties working, and arguments with management. Additionally, employees said colleagues misused or damaged equipment, which increased tensions with them, and created further frustrations for the employee while equipment was replaced.

Conflicts related to lack of provision or delays in receiving specialist equipment were particularly evident for employees with physical disabilities. However, neurodivergent employees also experienced this, even in workplaces with established support structures.

For example, one autistic employee working in a large public sector organisation said that, despite his employer's autism network suggesting that he would benefit from ear defenders to cope with the noisy atmosphere, it took several weeks for these to be provided. There were also cases where managers told employees who required specialist equipment that they would have to fund this themselves.

Employees' awareness of Access to Work (a government scheme that offers support with some associated costs of reasonable adjustments) was low. When asked, employees said that Access to Work had not been mentioned by managers or HR, meaning that potential financial support was seldom explored.

Employees reported that adapted furniture or equipment provided as part of agreed reasonable adjustments was at times used by non-disabled colleagues, without regard for how it would affect them. This interference meant adjustments were no longer suitable and, in some cases equipment was accidentally damaged.

Despite raising these issues, employees said that managers did not always act. Where managers did not intervene, employees felt reluctant to address the situation directly with colleagues for fear of being seen as 'confrontational'. In one case, an employee whose adapted table and chair was broken said that they had no alternative but to work from home until a replacement was provided:

"I've got space adjustments with an adapted table and chair … Eventually my table got broken and [I was told] I can work from home 'til when they order a new table and chair" (Interview 4, public sector employee with a physical health condition, affecting daily life a lot, large employer)

While this arrangement may have reflected legitimate health and safety considerations, this example shows how conflict could arise where there was uncertainty or delay in putting suitable adjustments in place.

1.2.4 Conflict arising from how reasonable adjustments are managed

Employees reported that some managers viewed reasonable adjustments as a management cost or inconvenience, rather than a means to enable effective working or meet legal requirements.

Delays and partial implementation of reasonable adjustments contributed to conflict. Employees experienced waiting weeks, months, and over a year for decisions to be made about reasonable adjustments. This meant that some employees' health deteriorated while adjustments were pending, increasing stress, and making subsequent disagreements more emotionally charged.

Managers typically led decisions rather than taking a collaborative approach and showed limited understanding of how a condition affected the employee's day‑to‑day work. Employees who experienced conflict in obtaining reasonable adjustments perceived the process as adversarial rather than supportive.

Where reasonable adjustments were provided, employees reported examples of managers treating them as temporary rather than ongoing, as they thought had been agreed. For instance, some managers put temporary adjustments in place after employees returned from sickness absence but later removed them. While employees accepted this was appropriate in some cases, such as phased returns to work, in other cases they said temporary adjustments for conditions such as depression or neurodivergence did not address the underlying issues.

Employees with conditions such as dyslexia or memory difficulties, described having to repeatedly justify their needs due to inconsistent or withdrawn support. This took an emotional toll, intensified conflict over time, and led to resentments becoming entrenched. This also led to managers questioning employees' performance, creating tensions between managers and employees, and resulting in breakdown of trust.

In other cases, employers or managers treated reasonable adjustments as informal, which meant that the arrangements were precarious. Examples of these included adjustments:

• not being recorded on HR systems
• not being consistently applied to the employee
• being withdrawn, at times without explanation

For example, a security guard with mobility issues was told that he could work from a central on-site office using CCTV but was later told he had to do in-person spot checks at the sites where he was stationed, which required moving around. He felt the reasons for the change were not adequately explained, which led to day-to-day tensions with his manager. Similar circumstances for other employees led to repeated negotiations, particularly following poor management communication about agreed adjustments, management changes, or restructures.

1.2.5 Conflict associated with colleagues' reactions to reasonable adjustments

Non-disabled colleagues' reactions to reasonable adjustments were a recurring source of conflict. Employees reported feeling resentment and hostility from colleagues who did not understand why reasonable adjustments had been made.

Managers did not always explain to the wider team why they were required to take on additional work because of reasonable adjustments for disabled colleagues. For example, one employee with ME was unable to undertake site visits due to their condition, resulting in these being covered by their colleagues. The employee said team resentment manifested in isolation or ostracism, such as colleagues not responding to their messages. In other cases, employees said colleagues did not consider how they could be included in meetings when their conditions required them to work from home.

Additionally, employees with ADHD said conflict for them tended to focus on working styles, organisation, and planning. Differences in how employees with ADHD managed tasks became a source of tension – for example, in terms of planning work across a team or meeting deadlines, which led to arguments with managers and colleagues.

For instance, one employee with ADHD highlighted that he preferred to work close to deadlines so that he felt more pressure to complete tasks. However, he was reluctant to explain this to colleagues for fear that he would be stigmatised, which led to arguments with other staff. By comparison, one of his colleagues who also has ADHD planned to do as much work in advance as possible in case they were distracted nearer the deadline. This example highlights that the same diagnosis does not necessarily imply the same working styles or needs, and that different working styles require people to be able to communicate them to each other.

1.3 What are the impacts of workplace conflict on disabled employees and their organisations?

Workplace conflicts affected disabled employees' emotional wellbeing and physical health, as well as their employment and careers. Employees also identified broader organisational impacts, particularly on workplace relationships, productivity, and staff retention.

1.3.1 Impacts of workplace conflict on disabled employees

Workplace conflict had profound emotional and psychological effects on employees. Employees with physical, mental, and neurodivergent conditions felt pressure to undertake tasks that were difficult for them and believed they had to work harder than others to 'prove themselves'.

Employees felt that their disability and need for reasonable adjustments led others to question their competence. This diminished their confidence and left them feeling 'undervalued'. In more extreme cases, employees felt managers deliberately 'targeted', 'bullied' or 'undermined' them, with some perceiving that managers were trying to get them to leave the organisation because of their disability, or the reasonable adjustments they had been given.

These experiences triggered feelings of anxiety and hypervigilance. One participant with bipolar disorder and a pituitary tumour described how sustained pressure at work, combined with caring responsibilities, resulted in severe distress:

"It was like a living daily nightmare. [My boss] was like, 'You're f**king useless, you're unreliable'. It was a pure, malicious bullying and using my mental health against me" (Interview 27, public sector employee with a mental health condition and a physical disability, affecting daily life a lot, large employer).

Employees also noted that these emotional and psychological impacts affected family life and relationships at home when workplace stress carried over beyond work.

Employees who continued to work without reasonable adjustments, or adjustments that were insufficient, also described physical, health-related impacts. One group questioned whether they were legally 'entitled' to describe themselves as disabled for the purposes of work –  despite having a long-term health condition affecting daily life 'a little' or 'a lot'.

Examples of conditions that these employees experienced were long covid and severe migraines. This meant they were unsure if they could request reasonable adjustments to help manage their symptoms or conditions. Unsympathetic employer attitudes reinforced this uncertainty, leaving employees feeling pressured to continue to work while in pain or unwell, resulting in deterioration in their physical health and reduced productivity at work.

Employees recounted how conflict could have lasting impacts on their career and employment trajectories. As discussed in Section 1.1, employees reported that disclosing a disability or health condition, or taking related sickness absence, could lead others to treat them as incapable.

Employees with this experience said they received fewer desirable tasks or were refused training opportunities, which they viewed as a form of victimisation. Some employees expressed concern that similar treatment would continue in other settings, for example, if they moved jobs. For this reason, one employee with arthritis and spondylosis felt self-employment was his only future option:

"I just want to leave ... and I will probably do something like self-employment or something like that. I don't want to work for anybody anymore" (Interview 14, public sector employee with a physical health condition, affecting daily life a lot, large employer)

Related to this, employees said that concerns about income and job security left them feeling 'trapped' in working arrangements they could not sustain. Financial commitments such as mortgages or car repayments made leaving an unsuitable job feel impossible, which in turn contributed to distress.

Other employees felt forced to reduce their hours or accept lower‑paid roles to manage their health, leading to increased financial insecurity. These pressures were heightened for employees who did not have access to disability-related benefits such as Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

1.3.2 Organisational impacts of workplace conflict

While this study focuses on employee experiences and did not include interviews with employers, the findings illuminate organisational impacts of workplace conflict from the employee perspective. Employees said that feeling undervalued and isolated eroded trust between them and their managers. This, in turn, led to poorer working relationships and diminished their productivity at work.

Participants described that erosions of trust led to barriers between them and their managers and other colleagues. These barriers led to employee disengagement from work. Employees reported avoiding contact with managers and colleagues and feeling reluctant to engage with their jobs. This led to presenteeism – with employees being present at work but not fully engaging with it – lost productivity, and higher rates of staff turnover.

1.4 How and why does conflict escalate?

While employees tried to resolve issues early and informally, these attempts did not always lead to a satisfactory resolution. Some employees then pursued formal processes, such as raising grievances and involving third parties, but with mixed outcomes.

1.4.1 Escalation of conflict at the informal stage

Employees recounted few examples of having resolved conflict informally. Employees who attempted to address issues early described three main approaches:

• initiating informal conversations with managers, sometimes involving a neutral intermediary (for example, a colleague or trade union representative)
• using their organisation's employee assistance programmes to access support, such as counselling services, to reduce the personal impact of the conflict
• adopting individual coping strategies, including adjusting routines or working practices to manage stress and protect their health

Despite these efforts, conflicts tended to escalate further because employers did not act. Section 3.1 discusses effective strategies for preventing or resolving conflict.

A key driver of escalation at this early stage was managerial inaction after employees raised concerns – Section 1.2 has examples of this. Employees shared that they felt that their line managers were reluctant to advocate for them, either by challenging senior colleagues – particularly over requests for flexible working – or addressing the inappropriate behaviour of other staff. Some line managers postponed or avoided meetings with employees altogether, including those involving trade union representatives, resulting in missed opportunities for early intervention.

Employees reported that HR support was absent at informal stages of the conflict. Those working in smaller organisations without a dedicated HR function described having no neutral third party to approach to help assess or intervene. They felt this made it more difficult to raise their needs without intermediary support and contributed to increased resentment over the time.

By contrast, employees in larger organisations with a dedicated HR function described it as 'remote' and inaccessible, or aligned with management. In some cases, managers discouraged employees from contacting HR directly, saying they were too busy.

In both cases, employees' accounts reflected an expectation that HR should act as a 'neutral third party' in resolving workplace conflict. This may reflect a limited understanding of HR's role as part of the organisation.

Meanwhile, employees involved trade union representatives across the public and private sectors to try to defend their position or help resolve conflicts. However, union involvement at informal stages had mixed outcomes. In some cases, it supported resolution by asserting disabled employees' rights under equality and employment legislation. In others, opportunities for early resolution were missed. For example, some participants described union representatives attending discussions with managers without actively advocating for their rights, which did not mitigate the conflict.

1.4.2 Escalation of conflict through formal processes

Employees escalated issues to formal processes when they no longer trusted others to address their concerns without senior intervention or procedural pressure. Once again, managerial inaction was a key driver of conflict escalation.

One route to escalation was the submission of a formal grievance against employers or managers. For example, an emergency services worker developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) because of his work and raised a grievance against his line manager. He felt that his manager had not sufficiently taken his condition into account when questioning his performance or provided suitable reasonable adjustments to address stress related to his PTSD. This resulted in him taking a period of sickness absence. At the time of interview, a senior manager had reviewed his grievance, and he was awaiting the outcome. This included whether it would be upheld, or whether his sickness absence and performance would instead be more closely managed.

Employees also felt that raising a formal complaint or grievance could worsen the situation, by triggering hostility from the manager against whom the complaint was made. Additionally, some employees raised grievances only at a late stage, as a 'final shot' before leaving the organisation.

There were also cases where employees perceived HR involvement as worsening conflict rather than supporting resolution. In these cases, the conflict escalated through formal HR and management processes such as:

• performance reviews
• sickness absence management
• occupational health referrals
• return‑to‑work planning

Where HR did intervene, employees said it typically initiated some form of performance or disciplinary process, rather than providing support. Employees also said they rarely experienced HR professionals as neutral or helpful, reinforcing the gap between expectations of HR and its organisational role. A lack of trust in HR professionals led some employees to lose confidence in HR as a function and contributed to their decision not to raise grievances against their employer or manager.

1.4.3 Escalation of conflict beyond the employer

No employees had progressed as far as making a claim to an employment tribunal in relation to their conflict. Although, some were considering doing so at the time of interview after feeling they had exhausted internal processes.

In some cases, employees pursued legal representation, which prompted stronger responses from their employer. These included instances where legal correspondence led to immediate changes in employer or managerial behaviour – for example, agreeing to reasonable adjustments, or stopping a disciplinary process.

One participant pursued a grievance and legal action against his employer over changes to his financial terms and conditions following his decision to work in a different branch closer to his home to support his mental health. In this case, the employer upheld the part of his grievance relating to losing financial benefits and paid him compensation.

Summary of findings:

• employees with major‑impact disabilities described experiences of conflict that were more frequent, severe, and more likely to escalate, particularly in relation to bullying, discrimination and formal management processes
• managers tended to frame the symptoms of major‑impact disabilities as performance or misconduct issues, rather than as unmet support and adjustment needs
• experiences of conflict varied by organisational context – smaller employers lacked formal HR support structures, while processes in larger organisations were slow and stressful, and insufficiently responsive to individual needs
• conflicts with line managers were the most damaging, discouraging disclosure and limiting opportunities for early resolution
• employees highlighted that line managers lacked understanding of disability – and also lacked the skills to handle disclosure, explain available support, record reasonable adjustments, and manage team dynamics

2.1 How and why are major-impact disabilities associated with conflicts relating to bullying, discrimination, sickness absence, terms and conditions, and misconduct?

Employees with major-impact disabilities stood out in Acas's conflict prevalence survey. Notably, they were not only significantly more likely to experience workplace conflict, but also reported higher-than-average levels of conflict in 4 specific areas:

• bullying, discrimination, and harassment
• sickness absence
• employment terms and conditions
• misconduct

The qualitative interviews explored the reasons underlying this pattern. They found that employees with major-impact disabilities experienced more frequent, severe, and escalatory conflicts than those with lower-impact disabilities. These commonly involved bullying and discrimination, sickness absence management and misconduct processes, and adverse changes to terms and conditions.

2.1.1 Major-impact disabilities and bullying

Employees with major-impact disabilities described their experiences of bullying in 3 ways:

• heightened exposure to hostile management styles
• barriers to resisting or reporting mistreatment
• the framing of their disability-related needs as performance issues rather than support needs

Employees with major-impact disabilities described their experiences of management styles that were 'brusque', 'aggressive' and 'bullying'. This contributed to workplace cultures they characterised as 'toxic' in relation to disability. This was especially the case where managers and employers still treated long hours and inflexible working as signs of greater commitment to the job:

"And he started to ask me to, like, he wanted me to stay back for events that he knew at that point I couldn't do … And it was then ... a case of being just worn down by a really toxic work relationship" (Interview 27, public sector employee with a mental health condition, affecting daily life a lot, large employer)

Employees with major-impact disabilities also described how their vulnerabilities could limit their ability to challenge or report mistreatment, leaving them feeling exposed to ongoing and sustained abuse. This was because the processes associated with addressing mistreatment were burdensome and felt too much for employees to manage in addition to the daily challenges they faced with their disability.

For example, an employee with ME, ADHD and dyslexia who worked in a large public sector organisation said trying to obtain reasonable adjustments through HR felt like a "battle" that she did not have the energy to fight. She had hoped for deployment to another role, but eventually gave up trying, which left her feeling exhausted, angry, and sad.

2.1.2 Major-impact disabilities and discrimination

Employees with major-impact disabilities described discriminatory treatment in several forms, including:

• the denial of reasonable adjustments and flexible working arrangements
• exclusion from training opportunities
• allocation of less desirable tasks compared with non-disabled colleagues

Once again, these forms of discrimination were particularly evident for employees with long-term, chronic conditions that required ongoing reasonable adjustments. But employees with fluctuating conditions such as depression or epilepsy also experienced discrimination where the need for adjustments reoccurred, but required different levels of adjustments at different times.

One participant with epilepsy, who worked at a healthcare facility, had his duties changed when his driving licence was suspended due to an epileptic seizure. All employees rotated across 3 key tasks, one of which included driving, while the least desirable task was cleaning. Even after his condition was managed, and his driving licence was returned, he was still given "poor jobs", such as cleaning and sanitation, while his colleagues were consistently assigned to more "cushy" work. He later left the organisation and, when asked in his exit interview why, said:

"You've not allowed me to go and do my job … There's no reason why I can't go back to driving. I don't want to be stuck in the washroom all the time" (Interview 6, public sector employee with a physical health condition, affecting daily life a little, large employer)

2.1.3 Major-impact disabilities and sickness absence

Employees with major-impact disabilities tended to describe having sickness absences that were more frequent or prolonged, owing to the nature of their disabilities. There were cases where employer responses to recurring or prolonged sickness absence led to performance management processes, rather than consideration of reasonable adjustments.

For example, one participant was threatened with disciplinary action for absences that were a direct consequence of cancer treatment and a developing brain tumour:

"It was like they're saying that it was my choice to get a brain tumour, but it wasn't" (Interview 22, private sector employee with a physical health condition, affecting daily life a lot, large employer)

In this instance, she felt that it was not acknowledged enough that her sickness absences were linked to her disability.

Another example was the emergency services worker with PTSD, previously discussed in Section 1.4.2, who raised a grievance after being placed on a performance management process following a period of sickness absence.

He said his employer had not enquired into his wellbeing and had instead moved immediately to attendance management action, communicated via an automatically generated email from HR. He felt there had been no acknowledgement of his mental health condition or of the circumstances that had led to his absence, including those related to the nature of his job.

2.1.4 Major-impact disabilities and misconduct

Employees with major-impact disabilities said that behaviours perceived as inappropriate or disruptive were often interpreted as performance issues or personal failings, rather than as symptoms of their disability that could be managed through reasonable adjustments. This was especially the case for employees whose conditions were not visible (for example, Crohn's, fibromyalgia, bipolar disorder, PTSD), or that were related to neurodivergence (for example autism and ADHD), partly because employees said their managers doubted that the reasons for sickness absences were genuine.

For example, an employee with ADHD described the way in which her symptoms intensified during a difficult period in her personal life. Her employer framed the difficulty she had in regulating her energy and focus as misconduct. Despite having disclosed her diagnosis, she said no adjustments were made, and the response focused solely on her behaviour rather than her support needs:

"I just feel like she was just like, 'You're annoying me, you're being stupid, you're being loud, you're being irritating'" (Interview 26, neurodivergent public sector employee with a mental health condition, affecting daily life a little, SME employer)

This showed that, even where an employee had disclosed their disability, this did not guarantee a focus on support (further discussed in Section 1.1). In this case, the employee was subsequently disciplined for misconduct, rather than efforts being made to adjust her circumstances and reduce the intensified impact of her ADHD.

2.1.5 Major-impact disabilities and employment terms and conditions

Conflicts experienced by employees with major-impact disabilities in relation to terms and conditions were often linked to requests for flexible working arrangements that differed from standard working practices – for example, requirements around office attendance or working full-time hours.

One employee with cerebral palsy described how his pre-existing working from home arrangement was withdrawn after a new non-disabled colleague was denied remote working. The employer applied a blanket policy to all staff instead of considering the specific disability‑related needs underpinning his arrangement. His manager told him:

"Business needs have changed, so therefore we've had to re-evaluate remote working" (Interview 8, private sector employee with a physical health condition, affecting daily life a lot, small and medium-sized employer)

In other cases, changes to terms and conditions were more complex. For instance, a participant with terminal cancer was told that her employer could no longer maintain her full pay given that she could not work her usual hours, and her condition was expected to deteriorate. She felt disrespected by how the decision to reduce her hours had been made and felt that the message had been handled poorly, even if her employer had a case.

Some employees with major-impact disabilities also described feeling they had, or may have, no other option but to take a less stressful, lower-paid role, or face worse terms and conditions (for example, reduced share options), to be able to get working arrangements that accommodated their needs.

2.2 How do experiences vary across different conflict contexts?

Employees' experiences of workplace conflict were shaped not only by the type and impact of their disabilities, but also by the organisational contexts in which conflict occurred. Differences in organisational size, structures, and roles influenced how conflict developed, who it involved, and how it was managed.

2.2.1 How experiences of conflict differed by employer type

Workplace conflict occurred across the public, private and third sectors, with no clear differences between them observed. Employees across all sectors reported fears of losing their job because of their disability, explaining that they felt 'grateful' to have a job, regardless of where they worked. This reflects the consistently higher rates of unemployment found among disabled people (detailed by official labour market statistics on the employment of disabled people on GOV.UK).

The size of the employer shaped the forms of support available to employees experiencing conflict but did not necessarily affect the severity of its impact. Employees in smaller organisations said they often faced conflict without access to formal support structures – (for example, HR departments, written disability policies, union representation, or clear grievance procedures). As a result, they were frequently uncertain about their employment rights and relied on informal relationships with managers and goodwill. One employee explained that his small car sales employer appeared to believe that legal obligations relating to disability and employment did not apply to them:  

"Because they were a small company, I think they felt like there were certain things that didn't apply to them" (Interview 8, private sector employee with a physical health condition, affecting daily life a lot, SME employer)

In businesses that were family-run or described as 'close knit', employees reported avoiding conflict and minimising the impact of their condition to protect relationships with colleagues, who were sometimes also family members.

Despite having greater access to formal policies and support (for example through HR, occupational health, and written grievance procedures), employees in larger organisations said that this did not necessarily lead to better outcomes. This was the case for private and public sector employees. Disabled employees working across the NHS, local authorities and central government described these processes as slow, stressful, and more aligned with organisational interests than with their disability‑related needs.

2.2.2 How experiences of conflict differed according to who the conflict was with

Employees experienced conflict differently depending on whether it involved the employer, HR, a line manager or colleagues.

Conflicts with employers tended to arise where they refused employees' requests for flexible working to accommodate the symptoms of their disabilities on the grounds that organisational policies (for example, mandatory office attendance) were applied uniformly by senior managers regardless of individual circumstance – as described in Sections 1.2.4, 1.2.5 and 2.1.5. These experiences left employees feeling pressured to comply with working arrangements that were difficult or even impossible for them to sustain.

Conflicts involving HR departments more specifically arose where HR initiated formal processes – such as performance management, sickness absence procedures, occupational health referrals, or return‑to‑work planning – in response to disability‑related absence or flexible working requests. Employees described HR as unsupportive and overly procedural, applying standard rules irrespective of individual needs and not always enabling line managers to exercise discretion:

"We've got all this research that basically mental health is the biggest cause of absences from work… yet we still just get a sort of 'computer says no' [approach]" (Interview 20, public sector employee with a mental health condition, affecting daily life a little, large employer)

In Acas's conflict prevalence survey, conflict with line managers was particularly common among disabled employees – 38%, compared to 29% of non-disabled employees. In the interviews, employees described conflicts with their line managers as the most damaging and difficult to resolve. Unsympathetic line managers created significant barriers to open communication – as described in Section 1.2.1. This discouraged disclosure and led some employees to continue working while their disability or health deteriorated. Fear of further harming already- strained employment relationships meant that participants sometimes tolerated difficult relationships with their managers for extended periods rather than raise concerns.

These management practices also shaped how conflict developed with colleagues. Conflicts with colleagues arose primarily from resentment about reasonable adjustments, particularly where managers did not adequately explain why adjustments were in place – check Section 1.2.5 for more on this. Where employees chose to keep their condition private, or where communication and team dynamics were poorly managed, colleagues sometimes interpreted reasonable adjustments as preferential treatment. This sometimes led to isolation or ostracism, highlighting tensions between confidentiality and fostering supportive workplace relationships.

2.3 How do disabled employees view their managers' capabilities and practices?

While some employees described managers taking constructive approaches to managing conflict, overall, they felt that line managers lacked the skills and knowledge to prevent and manage it effectively. This section focuses on gaps in line manager capability and practice identified by employees. Section 3.2 discusses effective line management.

Employees highlighted 4 sets of qualities as key for line managers in supporting disabled employees and preventing conflict, which they felt were often lacking:

• creating safe conditions for employees to disclose their disability
• understanding disabilities and reasonable adjustments
• proactively researching and explaining available support
• paying sufficient attention to detail in formally recording and maintaining agreed adjustments

Employees said they delayed or avoided disclosing their disability because they were uncertain how their line manager would react. Responses that trivialised or dismissed the employee's disability limited opportunities for constructive discussion and support, reducing the likelihood of resolving issues early. Read Section 1.2.1 for more on this.

Across accounts, employees emphasised that line managers' attitudes towards visible and less visible disabilities, and their ability to treat employees with 'dignity', were at least as important as technical knowledge of specialist equipment and reasonable adjustments.  For instance, one employee said:

"They should treat you with dignity, they should develop you, they could have challenging conversations with you, but they should always do it in a constructive way rather than making it personal" (Interview 23, public sector employee with multiple mental health conditions, affecting daily life a little, large employer)

Employees also described line managers as lacking adequate training and understanding of the nature of different disabilities and how they could affect employees – further described in Section 1.2.1. This contributed to situations in which managers refused, imposed, or misapplied reasonable adjustments.

Relatedly, employees felt that line managers lacked knowledge of what adjustments might support specific disabilities or long-term conditions, either due to a lack of training or a perceived lack of willingness to seek out information about possible adjustments.

As a result, employees often felt responsible for navigating these complex issues – and the systems required to implement reasonable adjustments – on their own. One employee who worked in a school that included children with special educational needs contrasted his employers' commitment to meeting the needs of their pupils with the support provided to disabled staff:

"You'd put all these provisions in place for the children, quite rightly, obviously. But then for the staff, it's kind of like, go [do] it alone" (Interview 30, neurodivergent public sector employee with a condition affecting daily life a little, large employer)

Finally, employees highlighted that line managers often seemed unclear about how to record disabilities and agreed adjustments – read Section 1.2.4 for more on this. Only one participant mentioned using a formal 'passport'-type document to record their disability, agreed adjustments, and working conditions, which could be updated over time and shared across roles or with new managers to avoid having to repeat this information. While he thought it was useful to have the passport, he found the process of obtaining it adversarial, with one manager originally questioning whether he needed it.

Summary of findings:

• disability awareness training can reduce conflict, but employees said it often proved too generic and did not adequately reflect different conditions
• coping strategies, wellbeing services, and counselling can support employees, but these often came into play only once conflict had escalated, and shifted responsibility onto individuals
• employees said open conversations with line managers could reduce conflict where managers acknowledged gaps in their knowledge, apologised for mistakes, and agreed practical adjustments
• third-party involvement – including unions, legal advice, and specialist health input – can prompt more substantive employer engagement and support resolution; mediation was rarely used but could be helpful
• effective prevention and resolution depended on clear expectations from senior leadership, empathetic and engaged line managers, and proactive HR documentation of reasonable adjustments
• employees suggested that Acas might strengthen its offer by raising awareness of its services, including condition-specific examples within guidance, strengthening signposting, and providing practical support for managers, especially in smaller organisations

3.1 What are effective strategies and interventions for preventing and resolving workplace conflict involving disabled people?

The strategies that employers used to prevent and resolve conflict led to mixed outcomes. In interviews, employees highlighted both approaches that had some success and those they felt could be effective if implemented consistently, with improved training and information for managers.

3.1.1 Effective strategies for preventing conflict

Employees described a range of strategies they had experienced in the workplace that they felt could help prevent conflict, although their effectiveness in practice had been mixed. These included:

• organisation-wide disability awareness training
• personal coping strategies
• using wellbeing services through employee assistance programmes
• having open discussions with line managers to try to establish and agree reasonable adjustments

Employees viewed organisation-wide disability awareness training as a potentially effective way to promote more positive attitudes towards disability in the workplace, and thereby to prevent or reduce conflict. However, they described the training they had received as too generic. Participants with a range of different disabilities and health conditions said that disability awareness training was too focused on physical disabilities, with insufficient information on how to manage the day-to-day challenges associated with mental health conditions, cognitive difficulties, and neurodivergence in the workplace.

At an individual level, employees described developing personal coping strategies to help them work during challenging periods. These included using ear defenders to manage sensory sensitivities associated with autism, exercising to support good mental health, and identifying and avoiding 'triggers' that exacerbated their symptoms. While employees found these strategies helpful, they also felt that an overemphasis on personal coping placed responsibility disproportionately on them, rather than reflecting a shared responsibility with employers, who have a duty of care.

Employees who accessed employer‑provided wellbeing services by themselves or following signposting by a line manager or HR described benefits such as increased confidence to raise issues, and a broader perspective on workplace conflict – for example, by making conflict feel less personal. Some also accessed counselling or therapy through employee assistance programmes, the NHS, or privately, which helped them reflect on difficult experiences and rebuild self‑esteem. For example, one participant said:

"Therapy has helped me a lot … I wish I'd kind of somehow been able to understand that outside the bubble of his management, I was valued more than I thought I was" (Interview 12, private sector employee with multiple mental health conditions, affecting daily life a little, large employer).

However, employees observed that these services were often offered as part of employee assistance programmes only once conflict had already escalated, limiting their value as preventative measures. This suggests that managers and HR making employees aware of such programmes earlier could have a positive effect.

Finally, employees felt that having compassionate, sympathetic, and constructive line managers was essential for open discussion to prevent, reduce, or resolve workplace conflict. By working through possible reasonable adjustments together, both employees and line managers could become more informed about how to respond to disability in the workplace. The specific qualities employees highlighted as key for line managers in supporting disabled employees and preventing conflict were discussed in Section 2.3.

3.1.2 Effective strategies for resolving conflict

Employees described a range of strategies they had experienced that they felt could help resolve conflict. These included:

• conversations with line or senior managers
• referrals to occupational health
• third party involvement, such as trade union or legal representatives
• specialist health and disability support
• workplace mediation
• changing manager or department

Employees said tensions often eased where raising concerns with managers resulted in them:

• acknowledging gaps in their understanding of disability
• apologising for mistakes
• agreeing practical changes to workloads or working arrangements

However, similar conversations could also escalate conflict, with some employees describing hostile exchanges rather than resolution.

Referrals to occupational health also helped to resolve conflicts. Employees described being referred by their employer or seeking occupational health advice themselves to confirm:

• if and how their condition affected their work
• that it was covered by equality legislation
• whether they were fit to work at the time of the referral
• what type of reasonable adjustments would help them stay in or return to work

In one case, an employee with a neurological condition and back pain was experiencing conflict with their employer over a lack of reasonable adjustments. Occupational health suggested that they should be given more flexible working times to help them manage their conditions better, which was subsequently implemented by their employer. This, in turn, helped to reduce the level of conflict.

Involving third parties to support employees in disputes was sometimes effective. While outcomes from involving trade union representatives were mixed (Section 1.4.1), there were cases where their early involvement had helped to mitigate conflict. In these instances, union representatives supported employees to negotiate suitable reasonable adjustments and reach resolution.

For example, a teacher working in higher education needed a reduced marking load due to the effects of ADHD. She said her union representative researched her disability rights and worked with HR to establish a formula for reduced levels of marking and a policy that could be applied to other employees with ADHD in future:

"The union was extensively supportive because they were the ones who did most of the research into the legislation and helped develop or interpret the formula that was used to conclude 30% as opposed to 35% support for marking" (Interview 13, neurodivergent public sector employee with a condition affecting daily life a lot, large employer)

In this case, the employer accepted that implementing these reasonable adjustments required them to find additional marking support within existing resources, or by employing freelance cover.

Similarly, employees described cases where privately funded legal representation had prompted more constructive employer responses, including:

• halting disciplinary action
• securing reasonable adjustments
• preventing job loss

They said this was because the legal representative was able to clarify the legal responsibilities of employers towards disabled employees, and the possible penalties for not meeting them.

Some employees engaged specialist health and disability support. For instance, one employee described working with a charity to facilitate communication with his employer. He had been referred to the Working Well Trust by a therapist, who believed it could support him after a period of sickness absence:

"The Working Well Trust contacted my work for the first time to kind of explain the situation and [suggested] a Teams call so I can actually be part of the meeting" (Interview 28, neurodivergent private sector employee with mental health conditions, affecting daily life a little)

He described the way in which the Trust facilitated a constructive dialogue with his employer, identified a role aligned with his aspirations and supported him to stay in work.

Employees reported not being offered workplace mediation to resolve their conflict, with the partial exception of one employee working for a charity who described being offered what he referred to as a 'restorative conversation' – an informal, facilitated dialogue with his line manager that shared key characteristics with mediation. He reported that this conversation, facilitated by a trained colleague, helped improve the working relationship and effectively resolved the conflict:

"It was like a meeting, and it was just me, this other colleague and then the team manager that, was ... trained in restorative conversations… and yeah, it made things easier" (Interview 7, neurodivergent voluntary sector employee with mental health conditions, affecting daily life a lot)

Other neurodivergent employees and employees with mental health conditions who were not offered mediation felt it might have been a helpful way to resolve their conflicts by addressing misunderstandings about their condition or resolving conflicts over preferred working arrangements or styles.

Finally, some employees resolved conflicts by asking for a change in manager or to move departments. This was either to remove themselves from the immediate source of tension, or as a temporary step until a longer-term solution could be achieved. However, this was only possible in medium-sized to larger organisations.

3.2 What are the respective roles of line managers, HR, and other workplace actors in supporting conflict prevention and resolution?

Employees were not always able to clearly distinguish between the roles of senior managers, line managers, and HR in preventing and resolving conflict. This was the case for employees working for larger employers, where departments and dedicated roles for these actors existed but were not clearly delineated. It was also the case in smaller businesses where the same individual may hold senior management or HR responsibilities alongside other functions. Even so, employees described what people in these roles did – or could do – in practice, as part of a wider employee management structure.

Participants regarded senior managers as having an important role in preventing and resolving conflict through policy leadership and setting the direction for how flexible working arrangements and reasonable adjustments should be implemented. Their authority was seen as particularly relevant in setting expectations for how disability should be managed in the workplace.

Employees also described what they saw as the role of line managers in preventing conflict and helping resolve it. Section 2.3 sets out the qualities and capabilities that employees felt line managers needed to carry out these responsibilities effectively. Employees described 4 corresponding core responsibilities for line managers in helping to prevent or resolve conflict:

• listening carefully and responding constructively when disabled employees raise concerns
• aiming to understand how an employee's disability affects their work, and working proactively with them to identify available support
• acting promptly to put agreed reasonable adjustments in place
• using their managerial authority to advocate on behalf of the disabled employees they manage

Notably, in relation to the last responsibility, some employees highlighted more senior line managers' willingness to use their authority and discretion on reasonable adjustments rather than relying on formal processes. For instance, a security guard with mobility problems described how their manager used this discretion to post them to a more suitable location without stairs or an outdoor toilet. He felt this provided quicker, more meaningful adjustments than waiting for the outcome of a lengthy occupational health assessment.

While no employee described being wholly satisfied with how line managers handled conflict, they felt that more consistent delivery of these responsibilities, and more managerial discretion, would help reduce tensions and support better working relationships.

Employees felt that HR could play a more proactive, organisation-wide role in preventing and resolving conflict by providing greater oversight and assurance that agreed reasonable adjustments are:

• clearly communicated to line managers (including where a person's manager changes)
• formally documented
• applied on a case-by-case basis, rather than through blanket policies

Formal documentation was seen as particularly important for employees with hidden disabilities, and as an area where HR had a key role in reducing the risk that agreed adjustments would be overlooked.

While this research reflects employee experiences of how conflict was managed, there were participants who also recognised their own role in raising concerns and engaging constructively in efforts to resolve them. This included clearly communicating their needs, where possible, and working with managers to agree adjustments or solutions.

Some employees also referred to the involvement of trade union or other representatives, who were seen as leveraging specialist skills and knowledge to provide support, advice, and advocacy in navigating workplace processes. However, the data on these roles was more limited, and participants tended to focus more on the actions of managers and organisations in shaping how conflict developed and was resolved.

3.3 How might Acas strengthen its offer to disabled employees experiencing conflict?

While some employees had heard of Acas, none had used its services. Employees revealed limited awareness across organisational contexts, including employees who worked in larger organisations. Employees did not fully understand Acas's role or its range of services, especially its advice services such as its helpline. Some had not contacted Acas because they believed its involvement was limited to statutory conciliation at the employment tribunal stage.

In this context, employees suggested that Acas could strengthen its support for disabled employees experiencing conflict by raising its profile, including through targeted engagement with HR professionals – for example by encouraging HR departments to signpost to Acas's website during workplace inductions. However, these suggestions sat alongside wider accounts indicating that internal routes for resolving conflict were not always clearly communicated. Some participants were not aware of their own organisation's grievance procedures or options for informal resolution and described limited HR involvement until issues had escalated.

In relation to Acas's information provision, some employees suggested that Acas could strengthen its offer by actively promoting existing guidance on disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments, including using condition‑specific examples.

Employees who had not visited the Acas website said they would value signposting to third parties, such as GP services, occupational health services, charities, and advocacy organisations, which they felt could help them identify appropriate forms of support. They also highlighted a desire for information on suitable 'fit notes' during periods of ill health and on reasonable adjustments at work, which Acas already provides.

Participants also highlighted potential areas where Acas could further support employers and managers in preventing conflict. These suggestions often reflected limited awareness of existing Acas's guidance, rather than criticism of current provision. Against this backdrop, some identified a need, especially in smaller organisations with limited HR capacity, for practical and accessible guidance on managing disability for line managers.

Others suggested that clear explanations of when and how Acas can provide support, alongside promotion of advice at the early stages of conflict, might help prevent escalation. Some also pointed to more interactive sources of information, such as AI‑based advice tools, as a possible area for development.

Finally, employees suggested that employers and managers might benefit from clearer guidance on workplace assessments to consider:

• the need for specialist equipment
• the suitability of the work environment for a specific disability (for example, whether working from home might be more appropriate)
• the effective implementation of reasonable adjustments

This qualitative study builds on Acas's 2025 conflict prevalence survey by explaining how and why disabled employees – particularly those whose disability has a major impact on daily life – experience conflict at work. The findings point to recurring areas of friction in workplace practices and relationships that give rise to and sustain conflict.

Disclosure and what happens after

A central theme of this study is conflict relating to reasonable adjustments being absent, contested or mismanaged. Disclosure can be important in enabling adjustments, but employees' experiences show that disclosing a disability did not reliably prevent conflict, either by fostering understanding or through the implementation of adjustments.

Some other employees chose not to disclose their disability, mainly for fear that their employer would not respond compassionately or that they would be stigmatised. Non-disclosure could also contribute to conflict when employees' needs remained unrecognised.

Reasonable adjustments and conflict

The findings span a spectrum from overtly hostile treatment to more indirect challenges, such as inflexible working practices, underscoring that conflict arises through both interpersonal and organisational dynamics.

Conflict often began when requests for support were doubted or reframed as performance or conduct issues rather than legitimate adjustment needs. This was particularly evident for non-visible and fluctuating conditions, which employees felt were more readily misinterpreted.

This reinforces earlier NatCen research for Acas that explored the characteristics and drivers of disability discrimination claims, which identified a mismatch between employer and employee interpretations of conflict:

• employers tending to frame issues as performance-related
• employees as rooted in discrimination and unmet adjustment needs

Moreover, even where adjustments were agreed, conflict could arise from delays, withdrawal, inconsistent application, or poor communication, including within teams. Conflict was also shaped by team-level dynamics, particularly where adjustments were poorly understood by colleagues, contributing to perceptions of unfairness, and where the practical impact on workloads was not adequately recognised or managed.

Major-impact disabilities and exposure to conflict

Employees with major-impact disabilities that affect daily life a lot were especially exposed to conflict. More frequent interactions with management on adjustments, sickness absence, flexible working, and performance created repeated opportunities for both support and disagreement. This may help explain their higher reported rates of conflict in the conflict prevalence survey.

Another survey finding that may be explained by the interviews was why employees do not always act in response to conflict. Some lacked the capacity to pursue it, as managing their condition already demanded time and energy, while disclosure and conflict could feel exposing.

Line managers, HR, and the rigid application of policy

Although line managers did not participate in this study, employees consistently described them as pivotal in shaping whether conflict was prevented, contained, or escalated. Employees reported that:

• managers missed opportunities for early de-escalation, with responses tending to be reactive
• earlier discussion, before issues hardened into formal processes, was seen as key
• where managers lacked understanding of disability-related needs, they relied on generic policies in ways employees perceived as overly rigid, which intensified conflict

These findings echo wider Acas research highlighting gaps in managerial confidence and a tendency to default to procedure – for instance, Managing conflict at work – policy, procedure and informal resolution. This study highlights the combined importance of 'conflict confidence' and 'disability confidence', particularly in:

• handling disclosure
• understanding fluctuating needs
• identifying adjustments
• communicating effectively

This is especially salient given evidence of reduced HR capacity and increased reliance on line managers for people management (Saundry, et al., 2024). Employees often expected HR to act as a neutral party, but experienced it as procedural, remote, or aligned with management, and as applying policies in ways that were insufficiently flexible to account for individual circumstances.

Third party support and routes to resolution

Finally, employees described the role of third-party support in reframing and de-escalating conflict. Occupational health, trade unions, legal advisers, and specialist services were seen as lending legitimacy to employees' needs and prompting employer engagement. By contrast, awareness of Acas was limited.

Workplace mediation was not offered in any cases, although employees, particularly neurodivergent employees and those with mental health conditions, suggested it may have been helpful. One such employee described a mediation-type intervention ('restorative conversation') that helped resolve their conflict.

Overall conclusion

This study shows how workplace conflict for disabled employees tends to arise from how employers respond to disability, rather than from the disability or health condition itself. Across the findings, gaps in understanding, rigid application of policy, and inconsistent handling of reasonable adjustments combined to create repeated points of friction, especially for those with major-impact or non-visible conditions.

No clear differences emerged by age or sector. Employees across age groups and sectors reported a range of conditions and similar experiences of workplace conflict.

Challenges in resolving conflict were reinforced by:

• limited early intervention
• employees' perceptions of variable manager confidence
• processes they experienced as procedural rather than responsive to individual need

At the same time, employees highlighted clear opportunities to reduce conflict, including:

• earlier and more open dialogue
• better-informed management practice
• more flexible, well-communicated approaches to reasonable adjustments

Strengthening disability awareness and conflict handling within organisations, alongside improved access to supportive third-party input, may help prevent escalation and support more constructive resolution when issues arise.

Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2013). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers (2nd edition.). Sage.

Saundry, R., Saundry, F., Urwin, P., Bowyer, A., Mason, S., Kameshwara, K., and Latreille, P. (2024). Managing conflict at work – policy, procedure, and informal resolution. Acas. 

The National Centre for Social Research (2025). How prevalent is individual conflict at work in Great Britain in 2025? Acas. 

The National Centre for Social Research (2024). Characteristics and drivers of disability discrimination and employment tribunal claims. Acas. 

Research questions

There were 4 sets of research questions for this study:

1. How and why do disabled employees experience workplace conflict, and what factors influence its escalation or resolution?

• Why are disabled employees, particularly those with major-impact disabilities, disproportionately experiencing conflict?
• How and why does conflict escalate or de-escalate for disabled employees?
• What workplace practices (for example, handling disclosures, reasonable adjustments) influence these dynamics?

2. How do experiences of workplace conflict differ across types of disability and conflict contexts?

• How do experiences of conflict differ across disability types (physical, mental, cognitive, neurodivergence)?
• Why are major-impact disabilities especially linked to bullying, discrimination, sickness absence, terms and conditions, and misconduct?
• How do experiences vary depending on who the conflict is with (for example, line managers versus colleagues)?
• What insights do employees' perspectives provide about the capabilities and practices that line managers need to help prevent and manage conflict effectively with disabled team members?

3.  What are the impacts of workplace conflict on disabled employees and employers, and how can these be mitigated?

• What are the human and related organisational costs, for instance arising from resignations, sickness absence, presenteeism and productivity loss, where individuals continue to work despite being unwell as a result of conflict at work?
• How can conflict management processes reduce these impacts?
• Are there examples of positive resolution that strengthen employee outcomes (that is, by maintaining positive employment relationships)?

4. What strategies and interventions are effective for preventing and resolving workplace conflict involving disabled people?

• What actions and inactions shape resolution outcomes?
• What does 'good' look like in inclusive conflict resolution from the worker's perspective?
• What support mechanisms and practical strategies are perceived by workers as effective?
• What are the respective roles of line managers, HR, and other key workplace actors in supporting resolution and prevention from the workers' perspective?
• What insights does the study provide to Acas on how they can strengthen the support they offer (a) to disabled employees experiencing conflict, and (b) to employers and managers in minimising and constructively managing such conflict?

Recruitment via Acas's 2025 conflict prevalence survey

Participants for this study were recruited from Acas's 2025 conflict prevalence survey, delivered via the NatCen Opinion Panel Survey – a probability-based panel using a high-quality recruitment method that provides robust data from a representative sample.

For the conflict prevalence survey, NatCen worked with Acas to develop a questionnaire which was then sent to working-age panel participants. The survey took place over August to September 2025 and was completed by 4,558 respondents – a 50% response rate. Full methodological details are provided in the technical annex to Acas's 'How prevalent is individual conflict at work in Great Britain in 2025?' report.

Survey respondents were eligible to be invited to participate in this follow-up study if they had a disability or long-term health condition that affected their daily life either 'a lot' or 'a little', and had experienced workplace conflict in the previous 12 months. A total of 441 respondents met these criteria and were invited, by email, to complete a short, web-based screening tool that was used to recruit the qualitative sample.

The screening tool was used to allow participants to:

• express interest in taking part in an interview
• confirm their suitability for the study
• collect information about accessibility requirements to participate in an interview

The screening tool was considered accessible because all participants had previously completed an online survey. To further ensure accessibility, however, participants could complete it by telephone if requested.

Interview screening

To be eligible for the study, respondents were required to confirm that the workplace conflict they had experienced was with an employer, manager, someone they managed or with a colleague, and not a wider conflict. The conflict also had to be solely or partly related to their disability, and not to other issues. This resulted in 152 prospective participants who were willing to take part and screened in as eligible, as shown in Table A1.

Base: All respondents screened in (n = 152). Screening-out categories are shown for completeness.

While these respondents represent a subgroup of the conflict prevalence survey, the results are not statistically representative and were used solely to support recruitment for the qualitative study. The results cannot be generalised, and conclusions should not be drawn about disability and conflict at work based on this data.

Quota-based purposive sampling

Quota-based purposive sampling was then applied to select 30 participants with a range of perspectives from among the 152. Quotas were set by:

• the extent to which the conflict related to the participant's disability
• the extent to which their disability affects their daily life
• the areas affected by their disability
• employer awareness of their disability prior to the conflict
• their age

Participants who met the relevant criteria were then selected at random within each quota and NatCen's Telephone Unit contacted them by phone (or email if they stated that as a preference in the screening tool) to book an interview. The achieved qualitative sample is shown in Table A2.

Base: All respondents sampled for the study (n = 30). Participants could report multiple 'areas affected by disability' – therefore, totals for this variable exceed 30.

Participants in the sample reported a range of physical, mental, and cognitive disabilities, alongside long-term health conditions, and forms of neurodivergence (Table A3). Some participants reported more than one type of disability or long-term health condition. No participants reported a disability relating to hearing or sight loss.

Interview data collection

Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured topic guide agreed with Acas. The topic guide explored:

• participants' disabilities
• how their disability affected their work
• experiences of workplace conflict
• how and why conflicts escalated
• and views on how conflicts could have de-escalated or have been resolved earlier

The topic guide is provided at the end of this Technical Appendix.

Interviews were conducted online using MS Teams or by telephone and lasted up to one hour. Participants were given a £50 Love2Shop voucher by NatCen as a thank you for taking part.

Interview recordings were stored securely on encrypted NatCen laptops. They were recorded, with participants' consent, using MS Teams, and transcribed using MS Word. All transcriptions were reviewed by the research team for accuracy.

Data analysis

Transcribed data was then managed using the Framework approach (Richie and Lewis, 2013) developed by NatCen.

The analytical framework for this study was structured around the topic guide and key themes that emerged from the interview data. This approach creates a matrix in which the rows are the cases or individual interviews, and the columns are the themes and sub themes based on the research questions. Data from each interview was summarised into the appropriate cell where case and theme cross. This ensured that data was ordered systematically and remained grounded in participants' accounts. The findings were then reported thematically according to anticipated and emerging themes.

Ethics and data protection

The research plan was reviewed by the NatCen's Research Ethics Committee and approved on 15 January 2026. NatCen's Research Ethics Committee REC provides checks and challenges to the research team to ensure that all NatCen research meets the highest ethical standards.

For this study, particular attention was given to ensuring that:

• the web screening tool and interviews were fully accessible to participants
• the research team were prepared to respond sensitively if participants showed signs of distress, and adjust the pacing of interviews if required
• participants would be signposted to additional support at both the screening stage and following their interview

Information about the study, how participant data would be used, and a privacy notice were shared with participants during recruitment and reiterated prior to starting the interviews. Before starting the interview, participants were asked to give their consent for the interviews to be audio recorded and transcribed. All data was collected, stored, and managed in accordance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Topic guide

Participant introduction

Introduction to researcher

Thank you for agreeing to take part.

Introduction to NatCen

Independent research organisation, commissioned by Acas (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service).

Acas is an independent public body that receives funding from the government to work with employers and employees to improve workplace relationships. It also gives employees and employers free, impartial advice on workplace rights, rules, and best practice. 

Explanation of research

Acas wants to understand why disabled people and people with long-term conditions experience higher rates of workplace conflicts than the Great British population as a whole and what can be done to try to prevent or reduce such conflicts before they escalate.

As a reminder, you took part in a NatCen survey last August or/ September that asked about people's experiences of workplace conflict.  Conflict was defined as 'disagreements, disputes, or difficult relationships', either as an isolated incident or an ongoing dispute.  

You shared with us that you had experienced conflict at work in the 12 months in your main job. The aim of this interview is to understand more about that experience.

If you experienced more than one conflict in your main job during that 12‑month period, the survey asked you to focus on the most serious one – meaning the incident or dispute that had the greatest impact on you, those involved, or the organisation.

For today's interview, we'd again like you to think about that same conflict – the one you told us about in the survey – so we can explore your experience in more depth.

We really value your experiences and views on what does or could make working better for people like you.

The interview will cover:

• some contextual information about your work, disability, or condition
• workplace conflicts you have experienced related your disability or condition
• what happened, if anything, to try to prevent, reduce or de-escalate the conflict
• what effects the conflict or conflicts/s, and trying to deal with it or / them, had on you
• what can be learnt from your experiences to try to prevent or reduce similar conflicts

There are no right or wrong answers. It is not a test. We just want to hear about your views and experiences.

Participation is voluntary. You do not have to take part if you do not want to. You can end the discussion at any time and choose not to discuss any topic. If you prefer not to discuss something, please just ask me to move on to the next topic.

If you disclose something which makes us think that you are at risk of harm, we may need to disclose this to someone. However, we will discuss this with you before any action is taken.

You can withdraw from the study at any time prior to analysis of interviews by 16 March 2026. If you wish to do so, please contact us on the study email address: acasanddwc@natcen.ac.uk.

With your consent, we will audio record the interview, so we have an accurate record of what is said.

The recorder is encrypted, and files stored securely on NatCen's computer system in line with UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2018.

Only the research team at the NatCen will have access to the recordings. Data will be securely deleted at the end of the project.

The interview will last up to one hour. You can ask to take a break at any point if you want to.

Do you have any questions?

Let the interviewee know that you are going to start recording.

Start recording

   1. Contextual information (approximately 10 mins)

Aims: to gain contextual information about the participant, their work, disability, or disabilities or long-terms conditions, and how these affect or affected their work.

Note – some participants may not see themselves as disabled or ill. For example, some participants may see themselves as having a condition or being neurodiverse. Please take the participant's lead on how they want to discuss their disability or condition

About the participant

• About them
• Age
• Whether live with anyone
• Whether currently working
• Still with the same employer at the time of the conflict (mentioned in the survey as a conflict in the last 12 months in the survey)
• Organisation you work for or worked for at time of the conflict
• Sector
• Size of the organisation (all the people employed in the workforce, if known)
  • Whether unionised or a member of a union

Your role

• Nature of the work
• Length of time in post
• Full or part-time

About your disability or health condition

• Description of their disability or disabilities or long-term conditions
  • How their disability affects or affected their work
  • Permanent or chronic, or fluctuating disability or condition
  • Whether disability, health or condition has got better or worse since the survey (in autumn 2025)
• Whether disability formally recognised or diagnosed 

Basic information about the conflict

Note – participants referred to a workplace conflict related to their disability or long-term condition when they took part in the Panel Opinion Survey in autumn 2025.

At this stage in the interview, please prioritise discussion in this order:

The conflict they thought about when completing the Panel Opinion Survey, which would have been in the last 12 months at that point; and (2) any new conflicts since then.

• Brief description of the workplace conflict they experienced
  • What kind of conflict or conflicts
  • How did it or they arise
  • Was it solely or mainly related to their disability condition
  • Who was it with (for example, manager, line manager, colleague, other)
  • If they have experienced multiple, disability-related conflicts, any differences between the conflicts

Disclosure of disability

• Whether they disclosed their disability or condition to employer, manager, or colleagues
  • From the start
  • As the issue or conflict arose
  • Reasons for disclosing or not disclosing
• If applicable, reaction to their disability or condition
  • From employer or HR
  • From line manager or other managers
  • From colleagues
• If disclosed, feelings about the reactions they received

   2. Workplace conflicts and effects (approximately 10 to 15 mins)

Aims: to explore workplace conflicts related to the participant's disability or long-term condition (including with senior management or HR), managers (including line managers or project managers), colleagues or others. How the conflict arose, with whom, and how this affected work relationships. Whether experience of previous conflicts about their disability or condition, if they had one, affected their experiences or views on the current one (the one they mentioned in the conflict prevalence survey). 

Note – participants may have more than one conflict to talk about. Please prioritise discussion in this order: (1) the conflict they thought about when completing the Panel Opinion Survey in autumn 2025 (this was an experience of conflict in the last 12 months); and (2) any new conflicts since then or (3) any other conflicts with their current or most recent employer in the last 3 years if there is time.

The conflict

• Description of the conflict or conflicts
• What led to the conflict or conflicts from their point of view
  • Nature of the conflict or conflicts
• Just related to their disability or conditions
• Were other issues involved
• Did disability or condition underpin the conflict
  • Was the conflict with one or more person (for example, employer, manager, colleague, other
  • How do they think employers, managers, colleagues saw the conflict
• If they had previous workplace conflicts related to their disability or condition, did this conflict feel different
  • Whether employee performance or disciplinary was raised
  • Point at which they or their employer raised the issue
  • Anything that affected their performance

Effects of the conflict on them and their work

• Any periods of specific difficulties or especially difficult issues
  • How affected their work or productivity
  • How affected specific working relationships
  • Effect on working conditions
  • Effects on physical or mental health
• Initial reactions or response
  • Tried informal discussion with person or persons
  • Spoke with HR, or employee rep or union rep
  • Considered or tried mediation
  • Consideration of resigning or leaving
  • If they did not do anything, what prevented raising the issue or issues
• Feelings about initial reactions or responses
• Any sickness absences (for example, whether signed off by a GP or doctor)
  • Type of absence
  • Length of absence
  • Extent of contact with employer, HR or occupational health during the absence
• Any other decision arising from the conflict

Employer awareness of disability and reasonable adjustments

• How aware is or was their employer of the disability or condition
• If not aware or did not disclose it, why was that?
• If employer or manager were aware of their disability or condition
  • Whether always aware
  • When employer became aware
  • Whether or how disclosure happened
• Manager or line manager response
• Whether employer or manager tried to accommodate their disability or condition
• Awareness of workplace rights for disabled people or people with long-term conditions
• Awareness of the concept of 'reasonable adjustments'
• Whether would consider the conflict disability discrimination

Note – we will come back to reasonable adjustments later in the interview.

   3. Responses to conflicts (approximately 15 to 20 mins)

Aims: to explore what employees did in response to the conflict, what they knew they could do, and what led to the conflict being resolved or escalating.

Note – start with conflict and take participants through each stage of their journey. This may involve going back to points discussed earlier. Please draw out what escalated or de-escalated the conflict, and any good practice when trying to resolve conflicts informally.

Journey of participant in response to the conflict

• After the initial reactions or responses, what did you or the employer do?
• Any further attempts to address the conflict informally
  • Whether spoke to person or persons directly
  • If yes, what happened
  • If no, why was that
• How did your line manager or immediate manager respond
  • Ignore or trivialise the issues
  • Seek advice
• Were there clear policies on managing disability in your workplace
• Did you have support from colleagues, union, workplace association
• Did you speak with HR
• Did you seek and help, support, or advice
  • Online or website
  • Using AI
  • Citizens Advice, Acas helpline or union helpline
  • Any other sources of information
• Whether offered mediation
• Useful or less useful aspects of informal discussions, advice, support
• Looking back, would you do anything differently (for example, anything that would have 'nipped the issues in the bud')
• Any regrets about not trying to address the conflict informally

Reasonable adjustments

• Any 'reasonable adjustments' made
  • Before or arising from the conflict
  • Nature of proposed or actual adjustments
  • How long for (for example, temporary, or permanent)
  • Whether adjustments made were 'reasonable'
  • Whether adjustments maintained or enough
• Reaction or response to adjustments
  • What worked or did not work
• Anything else their employer could have done for them
• Any support from HR, union, workplace association could have given
• Any other support sought – for example, charities, support groups, Acas
  • Type of support
  • How useful was it
• Feelings about whether conflict or issues were resolved at this stage
• Looking back, would you do anything differently
• If did not seek reasonable adjustments, any regrets

Formal complaints and grievances

• Did the conflict become more formal
  • Due to time off or sickness absence
  • Questions about performance or disciplinary
  • Complaint about discrimination, bullying or harassment to manager or HR
• Tipping point when the issues or conflict escalated or became formal
• Whether took, or considered taking, a grievance
  • Awareness of employer's grievance policy
  • Whether they knew they could take a grievance
• If did not take or consider a grievance, what were their reasons for not doing so
• Feelings about whether conflict or issues were resolved at this stage
• Could the conflict have been stopped earlier informally
• Looking back, would you do anything differently
• If you did not take out a grievance, any regrets

External complaints, mediation or conciliation, and employment tribunals

• Did you take the conflict or complaint beyond HR or your employer
• What did you do?
  • Was not sure what to do or was not sure where to look for advice
  • Raised issue with union or workplace rep
  • Ask for an occupational health assessment
  • Accessed a helpline (for example, Citizens Advice, Acas, union, charity related to their disability or condition)
  • Sought external mediation or conciliation
  • Other
• Why they felt it could not be resolved internally
  • When attempts at internal resolution stopped and why
  • Involvement of employee rep, trade union, union, another advocate
  • Breakdown in communication
  • Amicability or constructiveness of communications
  • Other
• Whether aware of Acas mediation or conciliation before employment tribunal
• Whether considered mediation or conciliation, or would consider it
• Made an employment tribunal claim (or else began that process)
• Feelings about whether conflict or issues were resolved at this stage
• Looking back, would you do anything differently

   4. Outcomes from actions (approximately 5 to 10 mins)

Aims: to consolidate information about what actions, if any, the participant took, how the issue or conflict stands now, and if the employee plans to take any future action. How the person feels about their job, employer, future job prospects or career now.

• Given what has happened, and any actions taken, how do you feel about the conflict now
• Is it resolved or on-going
• If resolved, anything that helped get resolution
• if ongoing, anything that could have prevented the conflict escalating
• What most contributed to resolution or escalation
• Feelings about impact on you
  • During the conflict
  • If relevant, after the conflict
• If affected by the conflict, whether they see it as bullying, harassment, discrimination, or something else
• Feeling now about their job, employer, career prospects

   5. Lessons learnt (approximately 5 to 10 mins)

Aims: to reflect on the experience or experiences of conflict and what could have been done differently to prevent escalation.

• Overall views of their and their employer's handling of the conflict
  • Positives and negatives
  • Areas of support needed or information required
  • Things they would do differently
• Suggestions for improvement
  • Disability discrimination law
  • Better training for line managers
  • Employer policies and procedures
  • Sickness policies and procedures
• Better contact with HR
• Better return to work policies
• Access to occupational health assessments
• Better external support
  • Access to advice and support
  • ccess to third party dispute resolution – for example, mediation or conciliation
  • Views on the role or usefulness of conciliation (if applicable)
  • How could conciliation be made more helpful to employees (if applicable)
• Key advice to Acas
  • How to prevent conflict related to disability or long-term conditions happening or escalating
  • For disabled employees or people with long-term conditions
  • For line managers and employers
• Anything else not yet raised or other thoughts

   6. Close