The Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures is being rewritten to bring the code in line with the Acas strategy 2025 to 2030. For employers, particularly smaller businesses without an in-house HR team, this is something to pay attention to because the proposed changes affect how workplace issues are expected to be handled in practice.
The current Code has been in place since 2009, with some amendments made in 2015. Acas has now published a draft replacement and is consulting on the proposed changes. The consultation closed on 23 September 2026, and Acas currently expects the updated Code to come into force in 2027.
Nothing has changed yet, so employers should continue to follow the existing Code for the time being. However, the draft gives a clear indication of how Acas wants disciplinary and grievance processes to develop, with greater emphasis on early resolution, reasonable adjustments, careful use of suspension and a more practical approach to workplace disputes.
Why the Acas Code matters for handling disciplinaries & grievances
The Acas Code offers guidance to employers and their employees on handling disciplinary and grievance matters in the workplace but it is not simply an HR guide. Employment tribunals take it into account when deciding relevant cases, and where an employer unreasonably fails to follow the Code, certain compensation awards can be increased by up to 25%. Employees can also face a reduction of up to 25% where their own unreasonable failure to follow the Code is relevant.
That means the process followed by an employer can have a direct financial impact if a dispute later reaches tribunal. The proposed new Code keeps many of the familiar principles around fairness, investigation, meetings and appeals, but it places more emphasis on whether a formal process was necessary in the first place and whether the employer properly considered other ways of resolving the issue.
More emphasis on informal resolution
Acas estimates that the annual cost of managing formal disciplinary and grievance procedures to UK employers to be over £2billion, while the comparative cost for informal resolution is £250million. This is the numbers behind the most significant changes being proposed in the draft Code, which is the greater focus on resolving problems informally where that is appropriate. In practice, this could mean a manager speaking to an employee about conduct, performance or a workplace concern before moving immediately to a formal disciplinary process.
The same applies to grievances. An employee may be encouraged to raise an issue informally first, where the circumstances allow, rather than moving straight to a formal written complaint. This does not mean that every matter should be dealt with informally. Serious allegations such as theft, violence, harassment or other potentially serious misconduct may still justify a formal investigation from the outset.
What matters is that the employer can explain why it chose the route it did. Under the draft Code, when an employee is invited to a formal disciplinary meeting, the employer would be expected to explain what informal steps have already been taken. If none were taken, there should be a clear reason why a formal route was considered appropriate.
For smaller employers, this makes record keeping even more important. A short, written note of an informal conversation, what was discussed and what was agreed may later help show that the employer tried to deal with the matter fairly before escalating it.
Not every problem needs to become a disciplinary
A common mistake in workplace disputes is to assume that if something has gone wrong, somebody must be disciplined. That is not necessarily the right approach, and the draft Code reflects this.
Once the facts have been established, an employer should consider what response is appropriate based on the facts available to them. Depending on the circumstances, options more constructive and beneficial to the business may be available; that might include taking no further action, having an informal management conversation, arranging additional training, using mediation, providing further support or changing working arrangements.
A formal disciplinary process may still be the right option, but it should not be treated as automatic. This is particularly important where the issue is minor, where there has been a misunderstanding, or where the real problem is poor communication rather than misconduct.
It is still important that employers avoid deciding the outcome before the investigation has taken place. A fair process requires an open mind, particularly where the allegation could result in a warning or dismissal, and such predetermination may get in the way of finding those more constructive options.
Greater focus on reasonable adjustments
The draft Code also gives more attention to reasonable adjustments during disciplinary and grievance procedures. This is relevant where an employee is disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and may need the process adapted so that they can participate properly.
Adjustments will depend on the individual circumstances. They might include giving an employee more time to prepare, providing documents in a different format, allowing extra breaks during meetings, changing how or where a meeting takes place, or adapting communication arrangements.
Employers should already be considering reasonable adjustments under discrimination law, but the proposed Code makes this part of the disciplinary and grievance process more explicit. The practical point for employers is that a standard procedure may sometimes need to be adapted. Treating everybody exactly the same will not always amount to fair treatment.
Suspension should not be the default response
Suspension remains another area where employers can get into difficulty. An allegation is made and the immediate response is sometimes to suspend the employee while an investigation is carried out.
There will be situations where suspension is appropriate, particularly where there is a genuine risk to the investigation, other employees, customers, business property, operational effectiveness, or confidential information. However, suspension should not simply be used as a routine step whenever a serious allegation is raised.
The draft Code makes it clearer that employers should consider whether suspension is genuinely necessary and whether there is another practical option. That might include temporarily changing duties, adjusting reporting lines, allowing employees to work separately or making another short-term arrangement while the investigation takes place.
Where suspension is necessary, employers should also think carefully about how it is communicated. It should be made clear that suspension is a neutral act to allow for a fair and thorough investigation process, and does not mean that the allegation has already been proven.
Grievances should focus more clearly on the problem and the outcome
The proposed Code also encourages a clearer approach to formal grievances. Employees would be encouraged to keep written grievances focused and, where possible, explain what outcome they are seeking.
That can be useful for employers because many grievance processes become unnecessarily long simply because it is unclear what the employee actually wants the business to do. A grievance may raise several complaints, but unless the desired outcome is understood, it can be difficult to identify whether there is a practical way forward.
An employee's preferred outcome is not binding on the employer, but it can help frame the issues and a rough idea of the end goal can provide a clearer structure to the process. The employer can then investigate the complaint, consider the evidence and decide what action, if any, is reasonable.
Mediation and facilitated conversations
The draft Code also gives more recognition to mediation and facilitated conversations as alternatives to formal procedures in suitable cases.
Formal grievance and disciplinary processes can consume a considerable amount of management time and can make workplace relationships more difficult, even where the employer follows the process correctly. For smaller businesses, that disruption can be particularly noticeable because there may only be a small management team available to deal with the issue.
Mediation will not be suitable for every case. Serious allegations still need to be investigated properly, and some disputes will require a formal decision. However, where the problem is mainly a breakdown in communication, personality conflict or an ongoing working relationship issue, a facilitated discussion may be more effective than moving immediately into a formal grievance process.
Be careful when an employee's companion cannot attend
The draft Code also reflects existing case law around the employee's right to be accompanied at certain disciplinary and grievance hearings.
Under the statutory rules, where an employee's chosen companion cannot attend, the employee can suggest an alternative date which is reasonable and falls within five working days of the original hearing date. However, employers should be cautious about treating that five-day period as an absolute limit in every situation.
The draft refers to the 2018 case of Talon Engineering Ltd v Smith, where an employer's refusal to postpone a disciplinary hearing for longer than the statutory five working days contributed to a finding of unfair dismissal. The lesson for employers is that the statutory minimum is not always the end of the matter. The wider question is whether the employer acted reasonably in the particular circumstances.
A short postponement may sometimes be sensible if it allows the employee to be accompanied and does not cause the employer any real prejudice.
What employers should be doing now to prepare for the Acas 2027 changes
Employers do not need to rewrite their disciplinary and grievance procedures immediately because the proposed Code is still in draft form. However, this is a good time to review existing procedures and management practices before the new Code comes into force.
In particular, employers should look at whether managers understand when an informal conversation may be more appropriate than a formal process, whether informal steps are recorded, and whether reasonable adjustments are properly considered. It is also worth checking that suspension is not being used automatically, that mediation or facilitated discussions are considered where suitable, and that disciplinary decisions are only made after the evidence and the employee's response have been properly considered.
Policies should also allow enough flexibility to deal with hearing postponements sensibly rather than treating procedural time limits as rigid rules regardless of the circumstances.
A point for smaller employers regarding the Acas code
Smaller businesses sometimes assume that the Acas Code is mainly aimed at larger organisations with HR teams and detailed internal procedures. That is not the case.
A tribunal will not expect a five-person business to operate in the same way as a multinational company, but it will still expect the employer to act reasonably and fairly. In most cases, that means carrying out a proper investigation, explaining the concerns to the employee, giving them a reasonable opportunity to respond, keeping an open mind and allowing an appeal where required.
The proposed Code does not remove those basic principles. What it does is place more attention on the decisions made before the formal process starts, including whether the matter could have been resolved more simply and whether the employer considered the individual circumstances properly.
In Conclusion
The new Acas Code is not yet in force and the final wording may change before it is introduced. For now, employers should continue to follow the existing Code but steps should be taken to prepare for the impact these changes will have on the way workplace disputes and disciplinary matters should be handled.
What is already clear from the draft is that Acas wants employers to think more carefully about how workplace disputes are handled before moving into a formal process. Informal resolution, reasonable adjustments, careful use of suspension and consideration of mediation are all given greater attention.
For employers, good procedure is no longer simply about sending the right letter and holding the right meeting. It is also about being able to show that the business considered the problem properly, chose a proportionate response and treated the employee fairly throughout.
How we can help
If you are reviewing your disciplinary or grievance procedures, or you already have a live employee issue, getting the process right early can save a lot of time and cost later.
We work with employers to manage disciplinary, grievance and workplace investigation processes from the outset. That can include reviewing the allegations, helping with investigation strategy, preparing letters and meeting documents, advising on suspension, supporting managers through hearings and appeals, and checking that the process is fair and consistent with the Acas Code.
We can also review your existing disciplinary and grievance policies ahead of the new Code coming into force, so you know what needs to change and what can stay as it is.
For smaller employers without an in-house HR team, we can step in as and when needed and provide practical advice at every step throughout the process.
If you have a disciplinary, grievance or investigation issue, or you want your procedures reviewed before the new Acas Code takes effect, get in touch with us to discuss how we can help.
