ACAS has launched a consultation (to close on 26 September 2026) with a view to updating the 2009 Code from a date as yet to be announced. Whilst fairness, consistency, the “rules of natural justice” and impartiality remain at its core, ACAS hopes that its new Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures will reflect the changing workplace and legal landscape.
Why is ACAS proposing to update the 2009 Code?
Managing workplace conflict is expensive. Investigations, meetings, taking witness statements and appeals takes manager and HR time, can incur external resource cost and increase internal managerial accountability. ACAS research indicates that 44% of working-age adults have experienced conflict at work during the previous 12 months. ACAS also estimates that formal disciplinary and grievance procedures cost UK employers “billions of pounds” annually. With this in mind, the revised 2026 Code seeks to refocus attention on early intervention and a proactive approach to workplace conflict resolution rather than trying to manage issues when, perhaps, battle lines have already been drawn.
What might the new draft 2026 Code mean for your internal policies and procedures?
Will the new ACAS 2026 Code apply to “workers” as well as employees?
Interestingly, the draft Code uses the word “worker” and not “employee”. What might this mean? Unfair dismissal is an employee right and not a worker right, so too the 25% compensation uplift/decrease – this will not change. However, could this mean that employers will be encouraged to follow the draft 2026 Code when dealing with complaints from casual workers or agency staff? We know that the direction of travel under the Employment Rights Act 2025 is to enhance the rights of zero/low/agency workers when it comes to shifts, but is there also a move to enhance their rights to a fair process? ACAS says that changing the language from “employee” to “worker” makes the 2026 Code more inclusive – could it be more than that? One to watch.
Bringing the Informal into the Formal
Under the new proposed 2026 Code, the use of informal conflict resolution has been given formal recognition. The 2009 Code encourages informal conflict management but informal procedures sit outside of the formal process framework of investigation, formal meeting, decision and a right of appeal. Under the 2026 Code, employers and workers would be required to try to resolve concerns informally first and when embarking on a formal disciplinary or grievance process they would be required to set out in writing what steps have already been taken to resolve the matter informally (or why none have been taken). By bringing informal conflict resolution to the fore, employment tribunals will be able to assess whether an employer (and worker) have used informal routes effectively or not. This is relevant. Often informal processes and informal “warnings” can be haphazard in terms of when they are used and whether any written records are kept. Bringing informal conflict resolution into the formal ACAS process means managers will have nowhere to hide and will need to explain to an employment tribunal why they have not dealt with an issue informally first and why records were not kept. Documenting informal decisions, as well as meetings, will have greater importance.
Alternative Conflict Resolution Options
The draft 2026 Code broadens conduct and grievance management options for employers. Although warnings remain (for misconduct and unsatisfactory performance), the draft 2026 Code includes reference to training, reasonable adjustments, mediation and facilitated conversations. Any well-thought-out management decision should include such considerations; however, it is interesting that such issues are given a formal footing in the new proposed ACAS 2026 Code, which again means that employment tribunals will be able to review the full breadth of the manager’s decision.
To suspend or not to suspend?
One question that arises in potential gross misconduct cases is whether the employer should suspend while the disciplinary process takes place. Having the right to suspend in a disciplinary policy is advisable and I would also include it in contracts of employment. The draft 2026 Code makes it clear that suspension should not be a default response. Instead, employers should decide if suspension is genuinely necessary in order to comply with a legal requirement or to protect the investigation, the organisation, staff or the worker concerned (and be able to explain their reasoning). Expect to have suspension decisions more widely scrutinised by employment tribunals.
Process, Process, Process
The draft 2026 Code does not change the basic fundamentals of a fair process: an investigation, a meeting, a clear and well-reasoned warning/decision and a right of appeal. It does not change the need for fairness or record keeping or allowing the worker the chance to state their case or be accompanied. Many of the proposed changes in the draft 2026 Code should already be part of a robust internal disciplinary and grievance procedure but putting these expectations in the 2026 Code itself will put these issues firmly on the employment tribunal’s radar and will, therefore, raise the bar for employers – and importantly – managers when it comes to expectations and explanations.
The new proposed ACAS 2026 Code cannot be considered in isolation. From 1 January 2027, more employees within your business will have unfair dismissal rights as they will only need six months’ service to qualify, plus their compensation could be much higher once the compensation cap is removed. The change to the qualifying period of employment also brings many more fixed term employees into the frame for unfair dismissal rights, remembering that the ending of a fixed term contract either during or at the end of the fixed term is still a “dismissal” under the Employment Rights Act 1996. A fair statutory reason PLUS a fair process (considered in all the circumstances) is going to be key. The changes proposed in the ACAS 2026 Code bring these changes into sharp focus, raising the expectation bar when it comes to both informal and formal processes.
Manager Training is Important
In managing employee relations issues, such as conduct and complaints, businesses rely heavily on having well- trained and competent managers. Yes, employers must have clear and communicated policies, but it is how they are applied in practice where employers often fall down. Having managers who can spot issues early, who know how to escalate complaints or have difficult conversations, can make a real difference to outcomes.
Think about the new draft 2026 Code in terms of an opportunity to revisit or refocus manager training on topics such as:-
- How to have difficult conversations at work
- How to improve communication skills
- How to manage performance
- How to manage conduct effectively
- How to investigate concerns
- What to do if someone raises a grievance
- Mediation and conflict resolution
Giving managers the confidence and the tools to act proactively will support the business positively in the long run. Managing issues at an early stage can avoid the need for long and drawn-out processes.
What should HR Teams be doing now?
Although the consultation is ongoing and the final version of the draft 2026 Code may change, HR Teams should be thinking ahead and discussing what any changes might mean to their business and management populations. The new draft 2026 Code places greater emphasis on early intervention as well as informal and alternative conflict resolution – do you need to think more closely about informal resolution? Revisiting manager training as well as considering including mediation as part of your conflict management “toolkit” would be advisable in any case. As unfair dismissal protections expand from 1 January 2027, for HR teams, having managers who have adopted a proactive mindset and who are well trained in managing employee relations issues, will stand any employer in good stead.
Find out more about In-house Training and HR Updates and Mediation in Employment Disputes.
Read the new ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (draft).
