{"id":9163,"date":"2019-03-04T20:06:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-04T20:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.brightmine.com\/uk\/?post_type=resources&p=9163"},"modified":"2026-03-20T09:23:12","modified_gmt":"2026-03-20T09:23:12","slug":"acas-discipline-and-grievance-2019-updates","status":"publish","type":"resources","link":"https:\/\/www.brightmine.com\/uk\/resources\/hr-compliance\/acas-discipline-and-grievance-2019-updates\/","title":{"rendered":"Acas discipline and grievance guide: 2019 updates"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\n

by Stephen Simpson<\/strong>, Brightmine Principal Editor- Employment Law and Compliance<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In February 2019, Acas made changes to its guide on discipline and grievances, which complements the “Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures”. We set out the key updates, in particular the amended guidance on workers seeking to postpone a disciplinary hearing because their preferred companion is unavailable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While “Discipline and grievances at work: the Acas guide” does not have statutory force, it is important because it expands on points in the “Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Acas guide also provides more detailed advice on dealing with disciplinary and grievance situations that employers commonly face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unlike the Acas code, a breach of which can lead to tribunals adjusting compensation in relevant cases by up to 25%, tribunals are not required to have regard to the Acas guide when considering relevant cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the guide is important because tribunals are still likely to consider it when interpreting the Acas code.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Companions at hearings<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

What’s new in the guidance?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Acas has updated its guidance on postponing a disciplinary hearing when a worker’s chosen companion is not available. The changes take account of the important Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Talon Engineering Ltd v Smith [2018] IRLR 1104 EAT<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Talon<\/em>, the worker requested a postponement for a couple of weeks to allow her trade union representative, who was unavailable on the proposed date of the disciplinary hearing, to accompany her. The problem was that the hearing had already been delayed because of the worker’s sick leave and holiday. The employer refused a further postponement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The worker subsequently succeeded in her employment tribunal claim for unfair dismissal, which the EAT upheld. The EAT decided that, even if an employer complies<\/a> with the statutory right to be accompanied (which allows a worker to propose an alternative time that is both reasonable and within five working days of the original hearing), a failure to postpone a hearing can still make a dismissal unfair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The updated Acas guide makes it clear to employers that, in these circumstances, they may have to delay the disciplinary hearing for more than five days if this does not cause “unreasonable delay”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“Employers may, however, wish to allow more time than this for a re-arranged meeting, particularly in cases that might result in dismissal. An employer must always act fairly in order to avoid a finding of unfair dismissal. Where there is a request to postpone a hearing for more than five days because a trade union representative or other companion is not available, it may be fair to allow the postponement if it does not cause unreasonable delay. The employer should consider the facts and decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

– Page 26 of updated Acas guide<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Importantly, the guidance also now recommends (on p.46) that employers take the same approach to grievance meetings that are connected to a potential dismissal. Acas gives the example of a grievance raised by a worker who complains that an ongoing disciplinary process that may result in their dismissal is unfair in some way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What should employers do?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Talon<\/em> has increased the uncertainty for employers faced with a worker seeking to delay a disciplinary hearing. In the past, employers faced with this common situation may have felt safe relying on the five-day timeframe for delaying a hearing under the right to be accompanied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, HR professionals have to think very carefully now before refusing to reschedule a disciplinary hearing to allow a particular companion to attend either a disciplinary hearing or grievance meeting connected to a potential dismissal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a difficult balancing act: employers are not expected to delay hearings forever, particularly because it is common for workers facing disciplinary proceedings to use delaying tactics. But HR should now bear in mind both the right to be accompanied and Talon <\/em>before refusing a postponement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Suspensions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

What’s new in the guidance?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Acas has expanded the guide’s section on suspensions. The guidance now places a greater emphasis on taking into account the impact on the employee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“Suspension can leave individuals feeling prejudged, demotivated and devalued. It should therefore only be used after very careful consideration. It should always be made clear that suspension is not an assumption of guilt and is not considered a disciplinary sanction.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

– Page 19 of updated Acas guide<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Acas also highlights that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n