Acas, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, has initiated a significant consultation on a new draft Code of Practice concerning disciplinary and grievance procedures. This proposed update, the first comprehensive revision since 2009, signals a fundamental shift in approach, placing a much stronger emphasis on early, informal resolution of workplace concerns before they escalate into formal processes or, ultimately, employment tribunal claims. The move reflects a growing recognition of the financial, relational, and psychological costs associated with protracted formal disputes in the modern workplace.
The revised code, available for public feedback until 23:59 on September 23, aims to foster a culture where employers and workers are encouraged to address issues proactively through open, informal conversations. Acas advocates that effective informal resolution not only reduces significant financial burdens but also profoundly improves workplace relationships and prevents unnecessary conflict from taking root. This consultative period is critical for gathering diverse perspectives on the proposed changes, which are poised to reshape how disagreements are managed across UK workplaces.
The Mounting Cost of Conflict: A Driving Force for Change
The impetus for this substantial overhaul is underscored by compelling data on the financial and human toll of workplace disputes. Acas research reveals that formal disciplinary and grievance procedures impose an annual cost of an estimated £2.36 billion on UK employers. This staggering figure, more than ten times the cost associated with resolving issues informally, highlights a significant economic drain that could be mitigated through more efficient and harmonious resolution mechanisms. The organisation’s objective is to initiate a broader dialogue about "how we can disagree better at work," acknowledging the evolving dynamics of workplace practices and relationships in the 21st century.
Beyond the direct financial impact on businesses, the human cost of unresolved workplace conflict is equally stark. Recent Acas research indicates that a substantial 44% of working-age adults in the UK experienced some form of conflict at work during the preceding 12 months. This statistic alone powerfully illustrates the pervasive nature of workplace disputes and the urgent need for more effective strategies to address them before they become entrenched and detrimental to employee well-being and productivity.
The consultation also arrives against a backdrop of increasing pressure on the UK’s employment tribunal system. Many parts of the country are grappling with significant backlogs and long delays as the volume of cases continues to mount. There are also growing concerns that certain provisions within the anticipated Employment Rights Act 2025 could further exacerbate this caseload, placing additional strain on an already stretched judicial infrastructure. By promoting early informal resolution, Acas hopes to alleviate some of this pressure, ensuring that tribunals remain a recourse for serious disputes rather than a default for all disagreements.
A Foundational Shift: Embracing Informal Dialogue
The philosophical core of Acas’s proposed revisions aligns considerably with recommendations put forth by Sir Charlie Mayfield in his "Keep Britain Working" review, which advocated strongly for the greater adoption of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms. Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, the newly appointed Chair of Acas, articulated this guiding principle in her foreword to the consultation document. "Many concerns at work are low-level and don’t need to be resolved through formal procedures. Trying to resolve matters informally first is usually the best approach and benefits everyone involved," she stated, encapsulating the essence of the new code.
While the draft code maintains the existing structural framework for formal disciplinary and grievance procedures, it introduces several pivotal changes designed to embed the expectation of informal resolution. For disciplinary cases, employers would be required to explain, when inviting a worker to a formal meeting, what informal steps have already been taken to address the issue. Crucially, if no informal action has been attempted, employers would need to provide a clear justification. Following initial fact-finding, the draft code further encourages employers to consider potential next steps towards resolution before progressing to formal procedures, fostering a problem-solving mindset rather than an immediate move to sanction.
Similarly, workers intending to submit a formal written grievance would be expected to detail the steps they have already taken to resolve the matter informally, or to explain why informal resolution was not possible. The draft guidance also proactively encourages workers, where feasible, to suggest their preferred resolution for the grievance. This innovative approach aims to empower both parties to identify practical solutions at a much earlier stage, potentially circumventing the need for protracted and adversarial formal processes.
Key Proposed Changes and Their Implications
The draft code introduces several other notable adjustments and clarifications across various aspects of disciplinary and grievance procedures:
-
Rethinking Suspension: Acas is reinforcing the principle that disciplinary investigations should be objective, reasonable, and proportionate, with the overarching goal of resolution rather than merely moving towards formal sanctions. To this end, the code suggests that suspension should be employed only in strictly limited circumstances. This reflects long-standing concerns that unnecessary or overly hasty suspensions can exacerbate tensions, incur significant costs, and negatively impact both the individuals involved and the broader workplace environment. The recent "Easter egg care home" case, reported by Personnel Today, serves as a stark reminder of the potential risks and negative outcomes associated with poorly judged suspensions. The consultation explicitly asks whether the code should provide more detailed guidance on the precise, limited circumstances in which suspension is a suitable option.
-
Streamlining Grievance Submissions: A common concern voiced by both employer and worker representatives is the trend towards "unnecessarily long and complex" written grievances. Acas notes that such submissions can cause significant delays in responding to and resolving concerns, often escalating tensions rather than de-escalating them. To counter this, the draft code urges workers to initially provide a concise and clear written explanation of their concern, allowing for the provision of more detailed information later if required. This aims to facilitate quicker initial engagement and understanding, fostering a more constructive dialogue.
-
Clarifying the Right to be Accompanied: The statutory right for a worker to be accompanied during formal disciplinary meetings is a crucial protection. The draft guidance provides enhanced clarity on accompaniment rights, drawing on relevant case law. It acknowledges the vital role companions play in helping workers understand procedures and express themselves more effectively, ultimately supporting fairer outcomes. Furthermore, the code introduces a "good practice" recommendation: even where the statutory right to accompaniment does not apply, employers should consider allowing accompaniment if it could aid in resolving the issue, though the final decision would remain at the employer’s discretion. This could potentially broaden the scope for support in less formal settings.
Drawing on case law such as Talon Engineering v Mr Smith (2018), the draft code also clarifies that in certain situations, an employer might need to allow a longer period for a rearranged meeting than the statutory five working days if a chosen companion is unavailable. An unreasonable refusal to postpone a disciplinary meeting could, in such circumstances, render a subsequent dismissal unfair. Acas also notes that the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade is conducting a separate review of the statutory right of accompaniment, and Acas will consider any recommendations from that review before finalising its own code.
-
Evolving Terminology: "Worker" vs. "Employee": The draft code proposes a significant linguistic shift, replacing the term "employee" with "worker" in most contexts. Acas explains that "worker" is a broader term encompassing both employees and other categories of workers, with "employee" being retained only where a specific legal distinction is intended. However, this seemingly minor change carries potential "unintended consequences." Employment tribunals currently have the power to adjust compensation awards by up to 25% for an unreasonable failure to comply with the Acas code, but this power typically applies only to employees. The consultation specifically asks stakeholders whether the code should generally use "worker" unless "employee" status is expressly intended, acknowledging the legal complexities this change introduces.
-
Addressing the Role of Artificial Intelligence: Recognizing the rapid integration of technology into all aspects of work, the consultation also seeks views on the burgeoning role of artificial intelligence (AI) in disciplinary and grievance procedures. Acas is asking respondents whether issues arising from the use of AI – for example, in performance monitoring, automated decision-making, or evidence gathering – should be explicitly addressed within the statutory code itself or in supplementary non-statutory guidance. This forward-looking aspect underscores Acas’s commitment to ensuring the code remains relevant in an increasingly digitalized workplace.
-
Broader Inclusions: Equality, Inclusion, and Training: The draft code places greater emphasis on equality and inclusion. It reminds employers of their ongoing obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the critical need to make reasonable adjustments where appropriate to ensure fair processes for all. Furthermore, the code actively encourages employers to invest in training to enhance conflict-handling skills across their workforce. It also formally introduces references to mediation and facilitated conversations as explicit, viable methods for resolving workplace disputes before formal action becomes a necessity, cementing their role as valuable tools in conflict resolution.
Enforcement and Industry Reaction
As with the existing code, failure to comply with the new provisions would not, in itself, render an employer or worker liable to direct legal proceedings. However, employment tribunals would continue to consider the code’s provisions in relevant cases. Crucially, they retain the power to increase or decrease compensation awards by up to 25% where there has been an unreasonable failure to follow its guidance. This mechanism provides a significant incentive for adherence, even in the absence of direct legal liability.
Initial reactions from employment experts to the draft code have been cautiously welcoming, though some highlight potential challenges. Rob McKellar, Legal Services Director at Peninsula, notes that while some employers already integrate informal management into their processes, others may find it difficult to conduct challenging conversations outside a formal framework. "Under the revisions this will become the expected norm, which is quite a shift from the current position," he observed. McKellar also pointed to the draft code’s expansion on the right to be accompanied, suggesting employers consider requests for accompaniment at informal meetings and allow non-statutory companions (i.e., individuals who are not fellow employees or trade union representatives). He noted the recent EAT ruling in Wolfe v Taka Mayfair, which clarified that the right to be accompanied only applies if a worker requests it, indicating potential areas for further clarification in the guidance.
Pete Colby, Director at employee relations and mediation specialist Pragmatism, argues that the code may even understate the necessity of informal resolution. While commending the encouragement of informal resolution, Colby believes it "doesn’t go far enough." He stressed that the financial costs, while significant, are secondary to the "crippling cost to wellbeing and mental health," identifying reduced stress as the primary benefit of informal resolution. Colby highlighted that the crucial skills and confidence required for effective informal resolution are only briefly mentioned. He concluded by asserting that, given at least 90% of cases should be resolved informally, much greater emphasis should be placed on empowering both employers and employees to focus on such methods, with formal processes being truly a last resort. Colby suggested that if Acas prioritizes informal resolution and the government invests in supporting businesses to develop these skills – rather than simply appointing more tribunal judges – the UK employment landscape would be vastly improved, potentially even reducing the demand on local GPs for work-related stress issues.
The consultation period offers a vital opportunity for all stakeholders – employers, HR professionals, trade unions, legal experts, and workers – to contribute their perspectives. The final version of the Acas Code of Practice will undoubtedly play a pivotal role in shaping the future of workplace conflict resolution, aiming to foster more harmonious, productive, and cost-effective environments across the UK.
