The Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures is a cornerstone of UK employment law that provides the standard of reasonable behaviour for handling workplace disputes. The current Code (last published 2015) has been updated, and a new draft published, which will be subject to a public consultation.
This Code is fundamental to operating fair procedures in disciplinary and grievance matters, so much so, that an employer’s unreasonable failure to comply with any of its provisions allow the Tribunal to increase any award they make to a claimant by up to 25% (conversely, an employee’s unreasonable failure to comply can result in their award being reduced by up to 25%).
This new proposed version introduces several key updates, all of which are designed to modernise workplace relations and accompany the changes in the employment landscape under the Employment Rights Act 2025.
- Scope and terminology
The current Code uses the term ‘employee’, but the 2026 draft changes this significantly by using the term ‘worker’. Both are very distinct for employment law purposes and therefore, a person’s employment rights.
This language change is significant because it generally broadens the scope of who the Code will apply to.
Other changes in terminology include the overarching terminology from ‘disciplinary and grievance situations’ to ‘handling concerns at work, and clarifying, and clarification of certain terms that are used throughout:
- ‘Must’ is used for legal requirements
- ‘Should’ indicates strongly recommended steps
- ‘Good practice’ identifies Acas’s recommended employment standards
- 2.Significant focus on informal resolution
The current Code briefly mentions that ‘a quiet word is often all that is required to resolve an issue’ informally, whereas the 2026 Code is proposing to place a much heavier emphasis on early resolution to prevent unnecessary escalation and dedicates specific sections to resolving both employer concerns and worker concerns informally.
It explicitly states ‘an informal conversation should never by itself result in a formal disciplinary warning or other formal disciplinary action’ suggesting that informal outcomes might include identifying training needs or putting in place reasonable adjustments instead.
- Written documents
A significant administrative change is the new requirement for employers to set out in the written invites to both disciplinary and grievance hearings, what steps have already been taken to attempt an informal resolution. Where none has been taken, the reason for this must be stated.
- Clearer criteria for suspension
The current Code states that suspension should be brief, kept under review, and not considered disciplinary action, but the proposed new Code expands on this by outlining specific reasons for when suspension should be considered, such as ‘when it is necessary to protect the investigation, the organisation, other staff, or the person under investigation’ and emphasises the importance of communicating the decision sensitively and in private.
- Reasonable adjustments
A significant addition to the Code is a dedicated section ‘avoiding unlawful discrimination’. Although the current Code focuses generally on fairness, the new draft explicitly ties procedures to the Equality Act 2010 by providing concrete examples of adjustments, such as:
- “Ensuring meeting venues are physically accessible.
- Providing documents in accessible formats.
- Allowing a support worker or interpreter to attend meetings in addition to the statutory right to be accompanied”
- Manager training
The Draft Code introduces a new section ‘Policies and training on handling concerns at work’, advising employers to develop written procedures alongside workers and provide training to help managers build the skills needed to resolve concerns early.
- Mediation and facilitated conversations
Additionally, while the 2015 Code mentions the use of independent third parties, the 2026 draft Code includes a comprehensive final section on ‘Mediation and facilitated conversations’ in which it details the voluntary nature of mediation, who should facilitate it, and specific scenarios where mediation is not suitable.
