Acas consults on revised disciplinary and grievance Code
Acas has published a draft replacement Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, the first full review of the Code since 2009.
The revised Code builds on the existing version, amending current provisions and introducing new guidance on reasonable adjustments, manager training, mediation and facilitated conversations.
As it stands, the new Code would as a whole place greater focus on the quality and consistency of management decisions in relation to disciplinary and grievance matters, rather than the formal hearing procedures themselves.
Although it is not legally binding in the same way as legislation, Employment Tribunals must take it into account when deciding relevant claims. Where an employer or employee unreasonably fails to follow the Code, a tribunal may adjust certain compensation awards by up to 25%.
A consultation on the changes has now opened, closing at 11.59pm on 23 September 2026.
Proposed changes under the revised Code of Practice
The main areas of change include:
Informal resolution
The current Code refers to informal resolution mainly in its Foreword, which sits outside the statutory text. Acas now proposes to bring that expectation into the Code itself, giving early and informal action a more prominent role in disciplinary and grievance procedures.
Employers and workers would be encouraged to address concerns informally before moving into a formal process where the circumstances allow. That will not be appropriate in every case. Allegations of gross misconduct, safeguarding failures or other serious risks may require immediate investigation and formal action.
The more difficult cases will fall between those two positions. A manager may regard an issue as too serious for an informal conversation, while HR may later conclude that the matter escalated before anyone tried to resolve it. Under the proposed Code, employers may need to explain not only what action they took, but why they decided that an informal route was unsuitable.
Written records and correspondence
That emphasis on early resolution would also feed into the formal paperwork. An invitation to a disciplinary meeting would have to set out what informal steps the employer had already taken, or explain why none were appropriate.
A worker raising a formal grievance would face a corresponding expectation to include that information in the written complaint. The requirement may appear procedural, but it would create a clearer written record of how the dispute developed before formal action began.
Employers may therefore need to look beyond standard letter templates. Managers will need to record informal discussions with enough clarity for HR to understand what happened, what outcome was sought and why the matter later moved into a formal procedure.
Suspension
The draft also gives suspension more detailed treatment. An employer should consider suspension only where a legal requirement makes it necessary or where there is a reasonable belief that it is needed to protect the investigation, the organisation or the people involved.
That approach reflects the reality that suspension can have serious consequences even though it is not, in itself, disciplinary action. It can damage trust, affect professional reputation and make a return to work more difficult, particularly where the suspension continues without regular review.
Employers would need to keep the period as short as possible, explain the basis for the decision and reconsider whether the original justification still applies as the investigation progresses. A default decision to suspend whenever an allegation appears serious would become increasingly difficult to defend.
Adjustments, training and mediation
The revised Code would include express provisions on discrimination and reasonable adjustments during disciplinary and grievance procedures. Employers would need to consider whether disability, communication needs or another protected characteristic affects the format, timing or conduct of the process.
The proposal also places more weight on the competence of the managers handling each stage. A sound written procedure offers limited protection where the investigation is poorly scoped, the decision-maker approaches the hearing with a fixed view or the employee’s right to be accompanied is misunderstood.
Acas also proposes a new section on mediation and facilitated conversations. Where both sides agree, the formal process could pause while they explore a consensual resolution. That option may help preserve working relationships, but employers will still need to control delay and ensure that mediation does not become a reason to leave serious concerns unresolved.
Use of the term worker
The draft generally replaces “employee” with “worker”, reflecting the wider group that may become involved in workplace disciplinary or grievance procedures.
The terminology does not, however, extend unfair dismissal protection or the statutory power to adjust compensation to everyone with worker status. Employers will still need to distinguish between the standards of fair workplace practice set by the Code and the statutory rights available to the individual concerned.
Next steps
The consultation remains open until 23 September 2026, with Acas inviting views from employers, HR professionals, workers, advisers and representative bodies.
Acas may revise the draft in response to that feedback before submitting the final Code through the required approval process.
The current Code will remain in force unless and until the revised version is formally approved and an implementation date is confirmed.
What employers should do now
Rather than waiting for the final Code, employers should identify where existing procedures rely heavily on individual manager judgement. Informal resolution, suspension and investigation decisions are likely to attract greater scrutiny, making these sensible starting points for internal review and manager training.
DMS Perspective for Employers
Should the draft Code come into force in its current form, employers will need to prepare for higher standards across the full disciplinary and grievance framework, from policies, documentation and management systems through to everyday conversations between managers and staff.
Combined with the changes under the Employment Rights Act 2025, the revised Code would add to the legal and operational pressure already facing employers. More employees are expected to gain unfair dismissal protection earlier in the employment relationship, while greater awareness of workplace rights is likely to increase the scrutiny applied to disciplinary decisions. Employers will need to invest proactively in compliance, management capability and HR oversight rather than treating the revised Code as a one-off policy update.
Some organisations will review their existing arrangements and reasonably conclude that their procedures are broadly sound, but the position should continue to be monitored and managed on an ongoing basis.
As HR professionals will recognise, the main challenge in most cases won’t be maintaining a central policy. The headache is making sure managers understand the policy and apply it consistently across the organisation.
At an operational level, the draft Code would place greater pressure on employers to evidence the judgement exercised at each stage of a disciplinary or grievance process.
Anyone with line management or wider people management responsibility is therefore likely to come under closer scrutiny. Managers will need to be able to defend decisions about when to address an issue informally, when to escalate it and when suspension is genuinely justified. Inconsistent treatment of similar cases is likely to become a common source of legal and employee relations risk.
Record-keeping is also likely to become more demanding. Managers will need to explain what informal steps they considered, why they rejected a particular route and what changed before the matter became formal. Employers should not wait until a complaint or dispute is underway before trying to reconstruct the reasoning behind those decisions.
The proposals also increase the importance of manager capability. A well-drafted procedure will not protect an employer where the investigation falls below the standards expected by the Code. Risks may arise from a poorly defined investigation, a conflicted hearing manager or a process conducted merely to support a decision that has already been made.
HR therefore would need to take a more active role at an earlier stage, which could include triaging cases before formal action, controlling suspension decisions, testing the scope of investigations and reviewing key correspondence.
Need Assistance?
For advice on reviewing disciplinary and grievance procedures, handling a live workplace process or preparing for the proposed Acas changes, speak to our employment law specialists.
We offer a fixed-fee telephone consultation to assess the issue, identify the immediate legal and procedural risks and advise on the next steps.
Read the draft Code of Practice here >>
Read more about the consultation >>
