Acas has published a draft Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures for consultation, its first full rewrite since 2009. Nothing has changed yet. The consultation closes on 23rd September 2026, Acas will then decide whether and how to take the draft forward, and any final version still needs government approval before it takes effect. What the draft does, regardless of its eventual shape, is reveal the thinking that underpins Acas’s proposed approach to workplace conflict.
The most significant shift in the draft is not to the mechanics of disciplinary or grievance procedures, but to their place within the wider management of workplace conflict. Formal process is increasingly presented as a last resort, to be used once reasonable attempts at informal resolution have either failed or proved inappropriate. That reframing sits behind almost every specific proposal in the draft, from the new documentation requirements to the suspension guidance to the new section on mediation.
If adopted, this would move informal resolution into the statutory Code itself, rather than leaving it in background guidance. Tribunals may be more likely to consider whether employers had reasonably explored informal resolution before commencing formal procedures when assessing procedural fairness and any potential adjustment of compensation.
Why this is happening now
The current Code has stood largely unaltered since 2009, save for a limited 2015 update to the guidance on the right to be accompanied in hearings. Acas’s case for revising it rests heavily on cost. It estimates that formal disciplinary and grievance procedures cost UK employers around £2.36 billion a year, against a figure roughly ten times lower where issues are resolved informally, and its research suggests that a substantial proportion of working adults experience some form of conflict at work each year. These proposals reflect Acas’s 2025 to 2030 strategy, which places greater emphasis on preventing workplace conflict rather than simply managing it once formal procedures have begun, and it is the case Acas will point to when deciding whether to proceed.
What “informal first” would actually require
The current Code deals almost exclusively with formal procedure. The draft changes that by adding dedicated sections on resolving employer and worker concerns informally, and by making clear that an informal conversation should never by itself tip into formal disciplinary action. Acas has also been careful to qualify the principle rather than universalise it. The draft states plainly that an informal approach will not be appropriate in every situation, and that concerns involving possible gross misconduct or other serious matters may require a formal process from the outset.
Where this becomes more demanding in practice is in the paper trail Acas expects to sit behind that informal approach. Under the draft, an employer inviting a worker to a formal disciplinary meeting would need to state what informal steps had already been taken to resolve the matter, or explain why none were appropriate. Workers raising a formal grievance would face a broadly similar expectation. That leaves employers with a practical question that many will recognise: an informal conversation only stays informal if it feels like one, yet a manager who wants to be able to demonstrate later that a concern was properly considered will need something in writing to point to.
The practical challenge for employers will be demonstrating that informal intervention has been considered and appropriately documented without unnecessarily formalising workplace conversations.
It is more likely to lie in giving managers the confidence to recognise when informal intervention is appropriate and how it can be recorded without turning every difficult conversation into a formal process. That is a harder thing to build than a template, and it is probably where most of the real adjustment sits if this draft proceeds broadly as written.
The draft changes the significance of the distinction between informal and formal processes. Employers have traditionally treated informal conversations as exactly that; informal, and largely outside the reach of the Code. By bringing them within the statutory text, Acas is signalling that an informal approach should still be proportionate and fair, and that employers may in future need to explain why they did, or did not, choose that route before moving to formal action. That is a different discipline from the one most managers currently apply to a quiet word in the corridor.
Suspension, mediation and moving away from default formality
The consultation proposes considerably more detailed guidance on suspension. Rather than the current Code’s brief steer that suspension should be as short as possible, it states that suspension should only be used where necessary to comply with a legal requirement, or where the employer reasonably believes it is needed to protect the investigation, the wider organisation, other staff, or the worker under investigation. This largely reflects the direction tribunals have already taken in case law, which means employers who currently treat suspension as an automatic response to any serious allegation should consider reviewing their current approach to suspension now.
Mediation receives a section of its own for the first time, and the draft proposes that where both parties agree to mediation or a facilitated conversation during a formal process, that process should normally be paused while it takes place. Acas accepts this will not suit every dispute, particularly for smaller employers without ready access to mediation services, but its inclusion reinforces the expectation that a formal procedure should not be treated as inevitable once a concern has been raised.
On the right to be accompanied, the substance is unaffected, though the consultation document consolidates guidance currently split between the disciplinary and grievance sections into one place. It also proposes reflecting the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Talon Engineering Ltd v Smith, making clear that where a worker’s chosen companion is unavailable, an employer should in some circumstances be prepared to allow more than the standard five working days for a rearranged meeting, particularly where dismissal is a possible outcome.
Other points to note
The proposal to reference the Equality Act 2010 and reasonable adjustments does not create any new legal duty, since those obligations already exist and are set out in detail by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. What would change is visibility. The duty would become a signposted part of the Acas Code itself, which makes a process handled without regard to it harder to defend as fair. Similarly, the Code’s exclusion of redundancy dismissals and the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts on their expiry is retained in the draft, and the proposed shift from “employee” to “worker” throughout does not extend the tribunal’s power to adjust compensation by up to 25%, which remains limited by statute to employees. Whilst certain compensation uplifts remain limited to employees by statute, the wider Code may still be relevant when considering the treatment of workers.
What employers should do now
Employers do not need to redraft policies while the consultation remains open, and there is no guarantee the final Code will look exactly like this current draft. Employers with a genuine view on the proposals, particularly on the practicalities of the new documentation requirements, have a real opportunity to influence the outcome by responding before the consultation closes on 23rd September 2026.
In the meantime, employers may find it useful to review recent disciplinary cases and ask whether earlier intervention or a more constructive conversation could realistically have prevented the need for formal process. That is, ultimately, what Acas is seeking to encourage. The suspension guidance already reflects settled case law rather than a genuinely new standard, and the financial stakes behind all of this are rising in any event. The statutory cap on unfair dismissal compensation is due to be removed from 1st January 2027, which means a tribunal’s power to increase an award by up to 25% for unreasonable failure to follow the Code could carry considerably more weight than it does today, whatever form the final Code takes.
Next steps
Acas will consider the responses it receives to this consultation and may amend the draft accordingly. If it decides to proceed, the updated Code would need to be approved by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade before being laid before Parliament, and no implementation date has yet been announced. Acas has also confirmed that the non-statutory guidance which sits alongside the Code will be reviewed and updated to reflect any final changes, so employers should expect the eventual package of guidance to extend beyond the wording of the statutory Code itself.
Buckles’ Employment Team is following the consultation closely and will report further as it develops. If you would like to discuss how the proposed changes might affect your disciplinary or grievance procedures, or would like support in responding to the consultation, please get in touch with a member of our Employment Team.
