The proposed revision of the ACAS Code of Practice reflects a significant change in emphasis. The question for employers may no longer be simply whether the correct procedure was followed, but whether workplace concerns were handled early, thoughtfully and fairly.
The public consultation on the proposed new ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures closed on 23 September 2026. ACAS is now reviewing the responses, and the final wording may differ from the consultation draft. The existing Code therefore remains the relevant standard until a replacement is formally approved and brought into effect.
Nonetheless, the direction of travel is clear.
The draft indicates a shift away from viewing disciplinary and grievance procedures primarily as a series of formal stages. Instead, it places much greater emphasis on early intervention, informal resolution, constructive communication and the quality of the decisions made throughout the process.
For schools and academy trusts, this is not merely a policy-drafting exercise. If the proposed approach is substantially retained, it will require organisations to think more carefully about management capability, workplace culture, record-keeping, reasonable adjustments and the point at which formal procedures should begin.
Why change is being considered
The current Code was last fully revised in 2009, with more limited amendments made in 2015 concerning the statutory right to be accompanied. Since then, working practices, expectations around equality and wellbeing, and understanding of workplace conflict have evolved considerably.
There is also a compelling financial and organisational case for addressing conflict earlier. ACAS estimates that UK employers spend approximately £2.36 billion each year managing formal disciplinary and grievance procedures. Its research estimates the annual cost of informal resolution, including informal discussions and workplace mediation, at approximately £250 million.
Those figures do not capture every consequence of unresolved workplace conflict. In schools and trusts, disputes can absorb significant leadership time, affect working relationships, lead to staff absence and distract attention from the organisation’s core educational responsibilities.
The draft Code therefore asks employers and workers to approach workplace concerns in a way that is fair, transparent and timely, with an express focus on preventing unnecessary escalation.
Informal resolution moves to the centre
Perhaps the most significant proposed change is the greater emphasis on informal resolution.
The draft Code states that concerns about misconduct or performance will often be best addressed through early conversations, allowing managers to explain concerns, understand the individual's perspective and identify practical solutions. These might include clarifying expectations, providing training, considering reasonable adjustments, exploring mediation or, where necessary, progressing the matter formally.
The draft does not suggest that every issue should be dealt with informally. Serious misconduct, safeguarding concerns and other matters with potentially significant consequences will still require formal procedures.
The key challenge for schools and trusts will be exercising sound judgement. Managers will need the confidence to recognise when early intervention can resolve an issue and when formal action is necessary.
Informal does not mean undocumented
Greater emphasis on informal resolution does not remove the need for appropriate records.
Under the draft Code, employers may be expected to demonstrate what steps were taken to address concerns before a matter entered a formal process, or explain why informal action was inappropriate.
Schools and trusts should therefore maintain proportionate records of key discussions, support offered, reasonable adjustments considered and the reasons for either resolving a matter informally or escalating it further.
The aim is not to formalise every management conversation, but to provide sufficient evidence that concerns have been handled fairly and consistently.
Suspension should be justified, not automatic
The draft reinforces that suspension should not be a default response during disciplinary investigations. Instead, employers should consider whether suspension is genuinely necessary to protect individuals, the investigation or the organisation, and whether alternative measures could adequately manage any risks.
Where suspension is used, the reasons should be clearly documented, reviewed regularly and communicated sensitively. For schools and trusts, this supports an individual risk-based approach rather than automatic suspension pending investigation.
Fairness depends on the quality of the investigation
The draft also places renewed emphasis on the quality of workplace investigations. Fact-finding should be objective, proportionate and focused on establishing the relevant evidence.
A fair investigation requires more than simply gathering witness statements. Investigators must identify the key issues, examine relevant evidence and reach balanced conclusions based on the facts available.
Schools and academy trusts should therefore consider whether those conducting investigations, hearings and appeals have the necessary skills and independence to fulfil their roles effectively. Training for investigators, panel members and appeal officers will remain essential to ensuring fair and defensible outcomes.
Reasonable adjustments and mediation
The draft gives greater prominence to reasonable adjustments and mediation as part of a fair workplace process.
Employers are encouraged to consider adjustment needs throughout a procedure rather than treating them as a one-off discussion at the outset. Adjustments may relate to communication methods, meeting arrangements, timescales, document formats or support during meetings.
The draft also encourages employers to consider mediation and facilitated conversations where appropriate. While not suitable in every case, these approaches can often help resolve workplace tensions before positions become entrenched and formal processes escalate unnecessarily.
The real issue is management capability
Ultimately, the proposed Code highlights that effective people management matters as much as procedural compliance.
Policies provide the framework, but outcomes will depend on the ability of managers, investigators, panel members and HR professionals to exercise sound judgement, communicate effectively and make fair, evidence-based decisions.
The direction of travel suggests organisations will increasingly be judged not simply on whether procedures were followed, but on whether concerns were handled reasonably, proportionately and with a genuine focus on resolution.
What should schools and trusts do now?
The draft Code has not been finalised, and schools and trusts should continue to follow the current Code. ACAS has confirmed that it is reviewing consultation responses. If it decides to proceed, the updated draft must go through the further approval and parliamentary process described in the consultation materials.
That does not mean organisations should remain passive. Many of the principles in the draft represent sensible practice irrespective of its final wording.
Schools and academy trusts can usefully begin to:- Review disciplinary and grievance policies
Identify whether policies explain the role of early discussion, informal resolution, mediation and reasonable adjustments. - Audit template correspondence
Consider whether invitations and outcome letters adequately explain the issues, evidence, potential consequences, procedural history and reasons for decisions. - Review suspension arrangements
Make sure decisions contain a recorded rationale, consideration of alternatives and arrangements for regular review. - Evaluate record-keeping
Ensure proportionate records are made of informal interventions, support offered and reasons for escalation. - Assess investigator and panel capability
Identify whether managers, governors, trustees and HR professionals require investigation, hearing or appeal training. - Develop access to mediation
Establish how mediation or facilitated conversations can be offered promptly when appropriate. - Strengthen reasonable-adjustment processes
Ensure adjustment needs are considered throughout a procedure rather than only when first raised.
A cultural shift rather than a procedural rewrite
The proposed Code should not be reduced to a checklist of new wording for policies and letters.
Its deeper message is that employers should build the capability to address concerns before positions harden and working relationships become irreparable. Where formal action is necessary, decisions should be based on objective evidence, reached by appropriately trained people and communicated with clarity and respect.
For schools and trusts, the opportunity is to move from a predominantly reactive model of case management towards an approach based on early intervention, confident leadership and proportionate resolution.
The final Code may change following consultation. But the central lesson is unlikely to disappear which is fair procedures matter, but good employment relations depend equally on sound judgement, effective conversations and the ability to resolve conflict before it escalates.
How we can help
Judicium Education will continue to monitor the consultation outcome and the publication of any final Code.
Our Employment Law and HR team can support schools and academy trusts with:- policy and procedure reviews;
- disciplinary and grievance documentation;
- independent workplace investigations;
- investigation, hearing and appeal training;
- reasonable-adjustment guidance;
- mediation and facilitated conversations; and
- strategic HR support in complex or sensitive cases.
Early preparation will help schools and trusts respond confidently once the final position is known, while also strengthening the quality and consistency of their current practice.
You can contact us at employmentlawadvice@judicium.com and you can find information regarding our Employment Law and HR service here.
Follow us on Twitter: @JudiciumEDU.
_1000.png)
