The ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures has been the cornerstone of workplace investigations and internal processes for many years. Most HR professionals and employment lawyers could probably recite large parts of it from memory. You can certainly count our illustrious employment team amongst those with such an enviable party trick!

It’s therefore potentially big news that ACAS has finally published a new draft of the Code – it’s first since 2009. This is just for consultation at this stage but it seems reasonable to assume that we’ll all be working to these new rules (or something very close to them) before too long. So, assuming the Code passes relatively unscathed, will anything much actually change?

The answer is yes… and no.

The fundamentals remain largely the same. Employers will still need to investigate fairly, communicate clearly and follow a reasonable process before making decisions. However, the new draft Code introduces a number of potentially significant changes that could materially influence how employers approach investigations, disciplinaries and grievance issues in practice.

For those of you operating in the film and TV, sport and gaming sectors, there are also some particularly interesting implications.

Perhaps the most significant change is one that initially appears relatively modest.

The current Code encourages employers to resolve issues informally where appropriate, but this only appears in the Foreword rather than the statutory Code itself. The draft Code changes that.

Informal resolution is now embedded within the new draft Code itself, meaning that employers and workers would have a requirement to consider informal options before taking things down could a formal route. Should they choose not to do so, they will need to specifically justify why they haven’t in any disciplinary invite or grievance letters they send. If they don’t, this could be one of the factors employment Tribunals look at when considering whether to apply the well-known 25% uplift (or reduction) in compensation for unreasonable failures to comply with the Code.

That is a subtle but potentially important shift. Many workplace issues simply do not need to become formal grievances or disciplinary processes. Early conversations, facilitated discussions and pragmatic interventions often produce better outcomes for everyone involved. This therefore seems to be a very welcome change.

In recent months, many employers have found themselves dealing with increasingly lengthy and complex grievances, often fuelled by AI-generated correspondence that can quickly turn relatively straightforward issues into hundreds of pages of documentation. In this context, anything that encourages earlier, proportionate resolution has to be viewed positively.

Of course, informal resolution will not always be appropriate. Allegations involving serious misconduct, discrimination, harassment or safeguarding concerns will almost always require formal investigation. However, many day-to-day workplace disagreements should be capable of being resolved before positions become entrenched and if the new Code encourages this then that must surely be a good thing.

One of the more interesting drafting changes (and one that has particular relevance to our client base) is the replacement of the word “employee” with “worker” throughout much of the Code.

For the sectors we commonly advise, this could bring the Code into play for a far larger proportion of the workforce. For example, film and television productions frequently rely on large numbers of freelancers, many of which are categorised as ‘workers’. Sports clubs and businesses equally engage casual matchday staff, stewards and hospitality workers on a regular basis. And technology businesses and games studios are increasingly relying on a wide range of contract workers alongside their permanent employee base.

It’s reasonable to assume that the revised terminology will reinforce the expectation that fair workplace processes should extend beyond traditional employees and will capture most (if not all) of the above. However, importantly, the revised Code will not by itself extend the aforementioned statutory 25% uplift (or reduction), which will remain limited to employees even if the new draft Code is adopted. Extending that to workers would require additional legislation.

Even so, this is significant. We are already starting to see more workers claim they are employees and we expect such challenges to status to increase considerably when the extended unfair dismissal protections come into effect from January 2027 by virtue of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (“ERA 2025”), particularly for businesses operating in the creative sectors.

Extending the Code to workers could therefore provide an even greater incentive for one to push for the gold standard of employment status should they face an issue at work.

Another important change relates to suspensions.

The new draft Code codifies the position that had already been established in case law, namely that suspension should not be viewed as an automatic or “neutral” step. Instead, employers should only suspend workers where it is genuinely necessary and where alternative options have been considered.

Given the basis in existing case law, this is not revolutionary. Many businesses have already moved away from treating suspension as the default response to allegations of misconduct and it is relatively rare that we’re asked to advise on the viability or appropriateness of suspension.

However, the revised Code reinforces this general trend and encourages employers to think carefully about whether temporary redeployment, adjusted duties or other practical alternatives might be available. What will be different though is the risk of the previously mentioned 25% compensation uplift if a business is too gung-ho in its approach to suspension.

The new draft Code also introduces new guidance covering:

• the requirement to consider reasonable adjustments throughout disciplinary and grievance processes;
• the importance of training managers who are responsible for handling workplace issues; and
• greater emphasis on mediation and facilitated conversations, including the possibility of pausing formal procedures whilst mediation takes place.

Again, none of these concepts are particularly new. However, bringing them within the statutory Code gives them greater prominence and reflects the increasing recognition that successful employee relations often depends on communication and early intervention rather than simply following procedural steps.

Whilst the consultation may result in changes before the revised Code is finalised, one thing already feels clear. The government’s wider programme of employment law reform (both in terms of the new Code and the ERA 2025) is placing increasing and renewed focus on constructive employee relations.

Employers that continue to view HR and workplace processes as purely a compliance exercise may find themselves on the back foot. Those that invest in good management, early conversations and fair decision-making are likely to be the ones who benefit most.

As always, we’d love to chat through any of the above with you so please do reach out with any questions.