Acas is consulting on a replacement Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. The consultation opened on 30th July 2026 and closes at 11.59pm on 23rd September 2026.
The proposals are not yet in force. Schools and trusts should continue to follow the current Code and their adopted procedures unless and until a replacement Code takes effect. However, the draft gives a clear indication of how Acas wants workplace concerns to be managed in future.
The main message is simple: where it is appropriate and safe to do so, concerns should be addressed early, fairly and informally before they develop into formal disciplinary or grievance cases.
The Acas Code sets standards for the fair handling of disciplinary and grievance matters. Employment Tribunals take the Code into account in relevant cases. Where an employer or employee unreasonably fails to follow it, a tribunal may increase or reduce certain compensation awards by up to 25%.
The draft is therefore more than general guidance. If it is approved, schools and trusts may need to change not only their written policies but also the way leaders and managers deal with concerns in everyday practice.
Acas wants more workplace disagreements to be addressed before they become entrenched formal disputes. It reports that formal disciplinary and grievance procedures cost UK employers an estimated £2.36 billion each year. Acas research also found that 44% of working-age adults in Great Britain experienced conflict at work during the previous 12 months.
For education employers, early resolution can be particularly valuable. Difficult working relationships can affect staff wellbeing, leadership time, team confidence and the day-to-day running of a school.
The draft gives informal resolution a much more prominent place. Concerns about conduct or poor performance would usually be raised first through a clear management conversation, unless the issue is too serious for an informal approach.
The same principle would apply where a worker raises a concern. The employer should listen, understand the issue and consider whether it can be resolved without starting a formal grievance process.
If a school later moves to a formal disciplinary meeting, the written invitation would need to state what was done to try to resolve the concern informally, or explain why informal action was not appropriate.
This does not mean every matter must be handled informally. Suspected gross misconduct, safeguarding concerns and other serious matters may require immediate formal action. The important point is that the school should make and record a reasoned decision about the correct route.
A line manager becomes concerned that a member of staff is repeatedly failing to follow an agreed handover process. If there is no serious misconduct or immediate risk, an early conversation may be appropriate. The manager can explain the concern, listen to the employee’s response, clarify expectations and agree any training or support needed. A short written note can record what was agreed without treating it as a formal warning.
The draft says suspension during an investigation should only be considered where it is necessary, for example to protect the investigation, the organisation, other staff or the person under investigation, or to meet a legal requirement.
Where suspension is used, it should be as brief as possible, kept under review and explained sensitively. The employee should be told why the decision has been made, that suspension is not disciplinary action, what will happen next and what support is available.
For schools, this reinforces the need to consider alternatives and keep a clear written record of why suspension was, or was not, necessary.
The draft makes the Equality Act 2010 duties more visible. Employers must avoid unlawful discrimination and make reasonable adjustments for disabled workers where required. A disciplinary or grievance process may therefore need to be adapted.
Depending on the individual circumstances, this could include:
Schools should discuss possible adjustments early and keep an appropriate record of what was considered and agreed.
The statutory right to be accompanied at a formal disciplinary or grievance meeting is not changed by the draft. However, the draft says it is good practice to consider a request for accompaniment even where the statutory right does not apply if this could help resolve the issue or avoid discrimination.
This may be relevant to informal or investigatory meetings. It does not create an automatic right in every situation, but schools should consider requests fairly rather than applying a blanket rule.
The draft gives greater prominence to mediation and facilitated conversations. These can help where the underlying issue involves communication difficulties, damaged relationships or conflict within a team.
Mediation will not be suitable for every case and should not be used to avoid dealing with serious misconduct or safeguarding concerns. Where appropriate, however, it may help those involved reach a practical way forward before positions become fixed.
The draft says written procedures support fairness, transparency and consistency. It also describes training and support for managers, workers and representatives as good practice.
In a school or trust, many important decisions are made by headteachers, senior leaders, governors or trustees who may not manage formal employee relations cases regularly. Clear procedures, early HR advice and practical training can reduce delay and improve the quality of decisions.
The draft often uses the term “concerns” and refers to “workers” rather than only “employees”. This supports a less adversarial approach and encourages organisations to address problems earlier than the formal disciplinary or grievance stage.
The broader language should not cause schools to lose sight of the correct legal and policy route. A concern about conduct, performance, safeguarding, whistleblowing or workplace relationships may require a different response. Identifying the issue correctly at the outset remains essential.
There is no need to replace existing policies while the consultation is ongoing. Schools and trusts can, however, use the draft to review whether their current arrangements are ready for the possible changes.
The consultation closes on 23 September 2026. Acas will consider the responses and may amend the draft. If it decides to proceed, the updated Code must be approved by the relevant Secretary of State and laid before Parliament. No commencement date is currently stated in the draft.
Until that process is complete, schools should continue to follow the current Code and their adopted procedures. The draft should be treated as a useful preparation tool, not as a rule that has already changed the law.