The publication of Acas’ fully revised draft Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures marks the most significant review of workplace dispute resolution since 2009. While the Code is not legally binding, employment tribunals must take it into account and can adjust compensation by up to 25% where there has been an unreasonable failure to comply. At 95 paragraphs, compared with the current Code’s 47 paragraphs, the draft reflects Acas’ ambition to encourage earlier, more constructive resolution of workplace concerns.
If adopted, the revised Acas Code could have important implications not only for disciplinary and grievance procedures, but also for organisational culture and the management of workplace conflict. The attraction of informal resolution is its flexibility. The risk is that once tribunals are invited to scrutinise it, employers feel obliged to formalise it.
From procedures to relationships
Perhaps the most striking feature of the draft Code is its focus on conflict prevention and early resolution rather than formal investigation and sanction.
Acas argues that formal disciplinary and grievance procedures cost UK employers an estimated £2.36 billion annually and that resolving concerns informally costs around ten times less. Against a backdrop of Acas research showing that 44% of working-age adults in Great Britain experienced workplace conflict in the past year, the organisation is seeking to encourage a more proactive approach to managing disagreement.
The revised draft introduces dedicated sections on resolving both employer and worker concerns informally. While the current Code encourages informal resolution in its foreword, the new provisions form part of the substantive Code itself. This change is significant because it places informal resolution squarely within the framework that tribunals may consider when assessing compliance.
Most notably, an unreasonable failure by either employer or worker to attempt informal resolution could, for the first time, result in a tribunal adjusting compensation by up to 25% in relevant claims.
In practice, this could alter how both employers and workers approach workplace disputes. Formal processes may increasingly be viewed as a last resort rather than the default response to workplace concerns. That is welcome, but it creates an obvious tension: once informal resolution sits within a statutory Code scrutinised by tribunals, employers may feel compelled to formalise it. The more scripted, documented, and controlled an informal conversation becomes, the less informal it is likely to feel.
A deliberate change in language
The draft Code signals its cultural intentions through both language and substance. Acas proposes replacing many traditional disciplinary terms with less adversarial alternatives, referring instead to workplace “concerns” and removing phrases such as “allegations”, “case to answer”, and “penalty”.
Mediation and facilitated conversations are also expressly recognised as potential alternatives to formal procedures.
Embedding inclusion into workplace processes
A noteworthy change is the decision to bring equality and disability considerations directly into the Code itself. For the first time, the Code refers directly to employers’ obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the duty to make reasonable adjustments for workers with disabilities. Examples include accessible venues, alternative document formats, interpreters, and support workers. Fairness and inclusion should be embedded within workplace processes.
New expectations for managers
Much of the revised framework will stand or fall on managers’ ability to identify and address concerns before they escalate. That is easier said than done. The temptation for employers may be to respond by introducing more process, more documentation, and more oversight. However, the success of the revised Code is likely to depend less on creating additional procedures and more on managers having the confidence and judgement to deal with concerns at an early stage. Although training is described as good practice rather than a legal requirement, employers are encouraged to equip managers with the skills needed to identify concerns early, hold constructive conversations, and resolve conflict before it escalates. For many organisations, this may require a reassessment of existing manager training and support. The revised Code is ultimately less a test of policy drafting than of management judgement.
Rethinking formal processes
The revised draft retains formal disciplinary and grievance procedures, but seeks to ensure they remain focused on achieving effective resolution rather than becoming an end in themselves. Employers would be expected to explain what informal steps have already been taken before commencing a formal disciplinary process, while workers raising grievances would be expected to set out previous attempts at informal resolution and, where possible, their preferred outcome. The draft also provides stronger guidance on suspension, emphasising that it should be used only where genuinely necessary and communicated sensitively.
The risk is that employers create a quasi-formal stage before the formal one. Informal resolution should not become an additional procedural hurdle through which every workplace concern must pass.
The consultation closed on 23 September 2026 and Acas will now consider feedback before presenting the revised Code to government.
What employers should do now
The draft Code is likely to require more than simply updating disciplinary and grievance policies. Employers should consider whether their workplace culture, management capability, and internal procedures are equipped to support the increased emphasis on early resolution and constructive dialogue. Employers should:
- Review disciplinary and grievance policies to ensure they reflect the new focus on informal resolution, mediation, facilitated conversations, and early intervention.
- Train managers to identify and address concerns at an early stage through effective conversations, active listening, conflict resolution, and de-escalation techniques.
- Ensure processes properly address reasonable adjustments and wider accessibility requirements throughout disciplinary and grievance processes.
- Consider whether mediation services, internal facilitators, or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms could be incorporated into employee relations frameworks.
- Review suspension procedures to ensure suspension is used only where genuinely necessary and is communicated in a sensitive and proportionate manner.
- Ensure there is sufficient evidence of informal resolution where appropriate, without undermining the flexibility that makes informal resolution effective.
- Monitor developments ahead of the final Code, including any reforms relating to the right to be accompanied and the use of AI in workplace procedures.
Ultimately, employers that invest now in conflict management skills, early intervention processes, and inclusive workplace practices are likely to be better placed to comply with the revised Code and prevent workplace concerns from becoming entrenched disputes. The challenge will be to demonstrate that concerns have been addressed appropriately without destroying the flexibility that makes informal resolution effective. The objective should be better practical resolution, not more process.
Policies provide a framework, but managers still need the confidence and judgement to handle difficult conversations well. Employment partner Gearalt Fahy advises employers on preparing for and navigating those conversations, from identifying the real issue and structuring the discussion to finding a practical way forward. For advice on strengthening management capability or supporting managers with difficult workplace issues, please contact Gearalt Fahy.
For further information please contact:
