In its first major revision since 2009, Acas has published a new draft Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, with consultation open until 23 September 2026. It’s clear from the accompanying introduction that the overarching aim is to promote the early resolution of concerns in the workplace. This supports Acas’s ambitious strategy of helping “employers and workers prevent, manage and resolve conflict, avoiding escalation and saving time, money and stress” – phew! But with recent research indicating that “poorly executed” workplace disciplinary processes costs the UK economy £28.5bn a year, the case for change is compelling.

As we set out below, the proposed changes are significant. Not only does the Code more than double in length, employers will need to rethink their default approach on some core processes. As a reminder, although breach of the Acas Code does not have a stand-alone remedy, employment tribunals must take it into account in relevant cases, and an unreasonable failure to comply can result in an uplift to compensation of up to 25%. With only months remaining until the unfair dismissal compensation cap is removed, this is likely to become an increasingly important battle ground.

What are the key changes?

Formalising informal resolution

Under the current Code, informal resolution has largely sat outside the formal statutory framework and crucially hasn’t formed part of what tribunals have regard to when assessing compliance. The draft Code changes this by expressly embedding informal resolution as a recognised first step within the statutory framework, for both employer and employee concerns. This means the 25% uplift or reduction can now attach to a party’s unreasonable failure to take this step, and failure to try informal resolution may in some cases make a dismissal unfair.

We have explored this key issue in more detail in our article on informal resolution, but summarise the main changes below.

Under the existing Code, informal resolution features only in the context of grievances (although informal resolution of disciplinary issues is referenced in the foreword). The draft Code applies this directly to misconduct (termed “employer concerns”) too. Employers will now be expected to consider an informal conversation before treating a performance or conduct issue as a formal disciplinary matter. Although gross misconduct and serious issues that could result in dismissal are carved out, this marks quite a sea change for employers. Further guidance on exactly when this approach is expected will be welcome.

Informal resolution must be addressed in correspondence: the disciplinary or grievance invitation will have to state what steps have already been taken to resolve the matter informally, or explain why none were taken.

The draft Code also sets out specific examples of potential outcomes of an informal approach. These include clarifying expectations, identifying a training need, a reasonable adjustment, mediation, or progressing to a formal disciplinary procedure. The draft Code also introduces express provisions on mediation and facilitated conversations, which can be used at any stage in a process, or afterwards, and which pause any formal procedure while they take place.

Underpinning this all is an acknowledgment that successful conflict resolution may require new skills. The draft Code introduces a new expectation that employers provide training and support to help managers, workers and representatives build the confidence to resolve concerns early. As we have seen in relation to the prevention of harassment, tribunals and the Equality and Human Rights Commission place significant weight on the value of good training, so this will be a key point for employers to address.

Scope and proportionality

The draft Code refers more generally to it applying to “concerns at work”. Digging deeper, the basic scope remains the same: it applies to misconduct and poor performance, and “concerns, problems or complaints”. Redundancies and the non-renewal of fixed term contracts continue to be carved out.

However, a new provision states that “the Code sets out principles….which should apply in most situations”. This could be a helpful indicator that the processes will not always be proportionate, and there is a new specific mention of small businesses in relation to the circumstances tribunals will take into consideration.

There is also a new reference to the interaction with other regulatory regimes, such as the UK Market Abuse Regulation, and an acknowledgement that when applied alongside other regimes, the guidance in the Code should be followed “to the extent that is reasonably possible”.

Acas is specifically asking for views on whether this gets the balance right, both on the treatment of employer size and resources and on how the Code should interact with other legal regimes. This is an area where feedback could still influence the final drafting.

Investigation and suspension

The core principles of a fair investigation remain unchanged, but the draft Code places greater emphasis on proportionality. It expressly recognises that some cases can be investigated through a review of documents alone, while others will require investigatory meetings with those involved – which is broader than the current reference to a meeting with the employee. This does not represent a substantive change in approach, but employers may welcome the clearer endorsement of flexibility.

More rigid, however, are the circumstances in which suspension may be appropriate. The draft Code goes into significantly more detail about when suspension should be considered, reserving this – broadly speaking - for circumstances in which there is a risk to the investigation, business, other staff or the person under investigation. There is also guidance on how to manage the suspension in terms of duration and communication. This reflects the development of case law that directs that suspension should not be taken lightly, and also the fact that, in reality, suspension is something that is hard to come back from once imposed. Interestingly, however, the draft Code removes reference to “paid” suspension, although this will continue to be the norm.

Keeping grievances more manageable

It’s widely acknowledged that the advent of AI has contributed to a proliferation of grievances, often of significant length. Employers might take some comfort from the fact that there are a few points in the draft Code that try to steer employees away from this approach:

• New wording says that workers should “explain their concern clearly in a way that will enable the employer to understand and resolve it”, and suggests that “[a] short, clear written explanation of the concern will often be enough at this stage”. Helpfully, the draft Code then goes on to say the worker should be allowed an opportunity to provide more information later if needed.
• The draft Code suggests that, following an informal conversation, the employer may wish to confirm in writing what has been discussed. This echoes our recent suggestion that introducing a scoping meeting at an early stage of the grievance process could be an effective way of managing lengthy and legalistic AI-generated grievances. It’s encouraging that the draft Code supports a more people centred approach before positions become entrenched.
• Workers are also encouraged to focus on outcomes and resolution from the outset. New wording says that, when concerns are put in writing, the worker should state, “if possible [how they] would like the concern to be resolved”. While understanding the key facts is critical to addressing the concerns, looking ahead to what a resolution might look like is also constructive.

Reference to reasonable adjustments

Although employers are of course already required to comply with their duties to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals under the Equality Act when conducting any formal process, there is no reference to this in the existing Code. A new section in the draft Code expressly states that employers must meet their obligations not to discriminate, going on to give examples of what reasonable adjustments might look like in this context. This is something that many employers will address in formal correspondence as a matter of course, but the examples in the Code (covering venue, documents and meeting support) are potentially useful to point to.

In the years since the Code was last amended in 2015 (albeit not significantly), holding meetings remotely has become commonplace. Interestingly the draft Code makes no mention of where or how meetings should be conducted. One issue that many employers are now facing is a reluctance on the part of employees to attend difficult discussions in person. The fact that the draft Code is silent on this point reinforces our suggestion that it may often be better that disciplinary and grievance policies don’t explicitly mention this to avoid establishing expectations either way.

Modernising language and tone

The language in the existing Code has been subject to an extensive review, reflecting Acas’s aim to “move towards a less adversarial and legalistic tone”. This is consistent with the broader shift away from formality. What will perhaps be more of an adjustment for employers is reference to more generic terms such as “concerns” and away from the language of “disciplinary” and “grievance”.

This terminology is firmly established in workplace internal policies and correspondence, and so considering how much to change this wording is likely to be an important consideration for many employers. Acas is even asking whether the title of the Code should change altogether, given its scope now extends well beyond formal procedures, though it acknowledges the existing title is already deeply embedded in organisational policies.

Another key change in the draft Code is the use of “worker” throughout (save in relation to a specific regulatory reference) rather than “employee”. This reflects Acas’s view that it is good practice for organisations to follow the Code’s guidance in relation to both workers and employees. However, the consultation acknowledges the potential for confusion here, given the impact of the Code does not apply equally to both workers and employees. The compensation uplift provisions only apply to employees, as does the ability to claim unfair dismissal based on failures to follow the Code. As this seems ripe for confusion, it will be interesting to see whether this change in terminology makes the final cut.

What’s missing?

Despite the fact the Code is now much longer, there are a few notable gaps.

The Employment Rights Act 2025

Given the scale of change the Act brings to unfair dismissal qualifying periods, and the greater role probationary periods will therefore play, we thought a revised Code might address this scenario directly. However, there's no express provision for any kind of lighter-touch or accelerated process. Acas may simply be leaving this to the accompanying non-statutory guidance, which is due to be reviewed and updated alongside the Code.

No mention of AI

The consultation asks whether the Code or supporting guidance should address the use of AI in disciplinary and grievance processes, but the draft text itself is silent on this. Given the big role that AI now plays in workplace disputes, this is perhaps a missed opportunity. That said, as noted above, there are some points which will help employers wrestle with AI inflated complaints, such as encouraging shorter grievances and follow up meetings.

What can employers do to prepare?

The final Code is still some way off, but there are steps employers can usefully take in the meantime.

• Training: Prioritising training is already good practice. Managers who are skilled at handling a difficult conversation informally, and early, are better placed to prevent a concern escalating into a formal process.
• Informal Resolution: The draft Code's direction of travel is unmistakable. This means that employers whose current culture already favours early, informal engagement will find the transition more straightforward than those where a formal process is the default response (see our article on informal resolution).
• Updating policies: It is probably too early to start rewriting disciplinary and grievance procedures. However, preparatory work will certainly be valuable, given quite significant changes may be needed.

The consultation closes on 23 September and can be viewed here. We will be responding to this consultation and we are keen to hear your views. If you would like to discuss how these proposals could impact your business, please get in touch with your usual contact.