Please see the below important HR & Governance update from our expert partners at CHRGS.

Acas Consultation on Disciplinary & Grievance Procedures (2026)

Acas has opened a consultation on a major update to its statutory Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures – the most significant rewrite in over a decade. Because employment tribunals must take the Code into account and can adjust awards by up to 25% for unreasonable failure to follow it, this update will shape how employers manage concerns, conflict and complaints. It is striking how often workplace issues escalate simply because early conversations do not take place. Acas data shows that 66% of early conciliation cases never progress to tribunal, demonstrating how effective timely intervention can be. Acas research also highlights the cost of escalation: formal disciplinary and grievance procedures cost employers £2.36 billion a year, compared with £250 million for informal resolution. With 2 in 5 working‑age adults reporting conflict at work, the draft Code’s emphasis on early, human‑centred conversations reflects a clear reality — most concerns do not begin as formal disputes; they become formal because they are left to grow. The tone of the new draft is clear: Less formality, earlier conversations, better documentation, and more humanity in how issues are handled.

Key changes 1. Early conversations become essential, not optional The draft Code puts mediation and early informal resolution at the centre of good practice.  Unlike the current Code, early resolution is now embedded within the statutory text itself. This marks a shift away from “policy-first” approaches.  Line Managers will be expected to address concerns promptly and informally where appropriate, rather than allowing issues  to escalate into formal processes.  This will not apply in every situation – safeguarding matters, gross misconduct or serious allegations will still require formal investigation. 2. Process documents and correspondence Expectations around the quality and clarity of documentation are significantly strengthened. Employees raising grievances will need to set out the informal steps they have taken, what outcome they are seeking and a short, clear summary of their concern. Similarly, disciplinary invite letters will need to explain what informal steps have already been taken. 3. Suspension must meet a “necessity test” The draft Code reinforces that suspension is not a neutral act and should only be used where strictly necessary, for example to protect an investigation, the organisation or staff involved. Suspension is not a disciplinary action but it can affect trust, wellbeing and reputation.  The Code expects employers to consider alternatives and to keep suspension under regular review. 4. Greater emphasis on reasonable adjustments and discrimination The Code expands expectations around fairness and accessibility.  Employers must consider disability and other protected characteristics throughout the process – including timing, format, conduct and support. It encourages employers to allow non‑statutory companions where this would support the worker, and to postpone meetings if a chosen companion is genuinely unavailable. 5. AI in disciplinary and grievance processes As part of the consultation, Acas is also seeking views on whether the Code should address the use of AI in investigations, evidence handling or decision-making.

What does this mean for Councils The draft Code introduces higher procedural expectations and will require councils to demonstrate consistency, fairness and clear reasoning throughout their processes. Policies will need to reference informal steps, with updated process templates and letters once the Code is finalised. Managers and Chairs will need confidence to hold early conversations, including how to record informal steps clearly. Mediation becomes a more visible tool, forming part of the council’s resolution approach. Later stages will require clearer evidence of what has happened and why issues escalated. Suspension decisions must be justified, with alternatives considered and documented. HR oversight becomes more important, particularly at points of escalation or suspension.  If in doubt, seek advice at early stages. Processes must be accessible, with reasonable adjustments properly considered and recorded. Managers may need guidance on reasonable adjustments. Thinking ahead To prepare for the new Code, councils should begin strengthening the foundations. Strengthen informal resolution capability so managers and chairs feel confident holding early conversations. Review current process documents to ensure clarity and consistency. Train managers on documenting informal steps and explaining decisions. Consider training around mediation options and reasonable adjustments CHRGS will provide updated policies for subscription clients once the final Code is approved and published, and can support with training. For more information on Ongoing HR and Governance Support, please visit our website or contact us by email support@chrgs.co.uk.

Reasonable adjustments – Councils need to be aware of their duty to make reasonable adjustments in a timely manner

Vale v Avon & Somerset Police Avon and Somerset Police failed to make reasonable adjustments for a worker who was also subjected to disability harassment, a tribunal ruled. Donna Vale was employed by the force as a victim and witness care officer on a fixed-term contract between September 2023 and May 2024. Vale disclosed her diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to the force at the start of her contract and requested noise-cancelling headphones. This equipment was not provided throughout her employment. Tribunal Judge Edmund Beever also ruled the force was guilty of disability harassment following comments by Vale’s manager about her ADHD. Vale, has recently been awarded £19,141 after previously winning the disability discrimination case against Avon and Somerset Police. Employers’ duty to make reasonable adjustments Employers must make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees as soon as they know, or could reasonably be expected to know, that an employee has a disability and is placed at a substantial disadvantage. There is no specific statutory deadline for implementing reasonable adjustments, but employers are expected to act promptly once the duty is triggered. The timing depends on when the employer becomes aware of the disability and the disadvantage it causes, with the duty being ongoing and requiring review when circumstances change.

Wickham v HM Revenue & Customs HMRC has been ordered to pay more than £155,000 to trainee criminal investigator Mr R Wickham after an Employment Tribunal found it failed to make reasonable adjustments for his mental health and later subjected him to disability‑related harassment and victimisation. Wickham disclosed depression, anxiety and possible PTSD in March 2021. Occupational health advised that his condition had “undoubtedly” affected his performance and recommended a reduced workload, but HMRC did not implement the adjustments. In August 2021 he was told he had failed his training assessment. After he raised concerns that his mental health had influenced the decision and confirmed he had disclosed his condition during recruitment, senior staff attempted to verify whether he had been truthful despite HMRC’s own records confirming this. The tribunal described this as an effort to “dig the dirt” on him after he raised concerns and sought legal advice. While his direct disability discrimination claim was dismissed, the tribunal upheld claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments, disability‑related harassment and victimisation, and found the decision to end his training premature. Wickham received £155,077 for financial losses and injury to feelings, with further compensation for future losses and personal injury still to be determined. The case underscores the importance of acting on occupational health recommendations, making appropriate adjustments and protecting employees who raise discrimination concerns from victimisation. 📣CHRGS comment there have been several well documented Town Council cases, where the Council has been found to have not made reasonable adjustments for employees at tribunals. These cases are expensive to defend both in terms of disturbance to the Council and also financially. They can be easily avoided by ensuring managers deal with requests for reasonable adjustments promptly and fairly. Councils are particularly at risk when considering such requests from the Clerk due to the democratic process, often an overly bureaucratic one.