By spurring action on informal resolutions, the new ACAS Code of Practice can be a foundation for improving workplace cultures and a new benchmark for what makes a ‘good’ employer. 

The planned new emphasis on informal, preventative measures — when they should be used, and how to make them more effective in preventing misunderstandings and minor disagreements and clashes in personality turning into conflict — is an important development for workplace relations. 

Particularly now, given the bottlenecks in the Employment Tribunal system. This year the total number of open cases passed the half a million mark — unfair dismissal claims lodged in 2026 aren’t expected to go to a full court until 2031 — leading to the Employment Lawyers Association to call for a triage body to prevent so many cases reaching the tribunal stage. And the pressures on employers from the Government’s Keep Britain Working initiative to focus on supportive workplace environments. 

CMP’s own experience of equipping organisations with the capability to deliver informal resolution services has shown these kinds of early interventions are a practical, human and proportionate way to better address workplace concerns for all types of organisations. 

Getting the benefits from an informal resolution approach will take more than agreeing to the principles of a new Code or just new forms of wording to a policy. The Code needs to be explicit in setting out the specific capabilities needed to make sure informal resolutions are a genuine first line of response — and certainly not used to minimise serious concerns or deter formal complaints.  

At the heart of the national workplace grievance and conflict challenge, the rising number of tribunal cases, the sense of disengagement and declining levels of trust among employees, is the lack of skills when it comes to difficult situations and conversations. Resorting to formal procedures has come to be perceived as the easier alternative, an impersonal, automatic way forward to achieve a result.  

Recent studies from ACAS and the CIPD have consistently pointed to a lack of confidence among managers in handling workplace disputes, suggesting that around half of employees believe their line managers have caused or worsened team conflicts. 

The importance of the skills involved and the necessary training needs to be reinforced throughout the Code’s guidance. Too often there’s an assumption that leaders and people managers will be able to have challenging conversations whenever needed, that they will also coach and support their direct reports in dealing with any problems. But these informal conversations take skill, practice and confidence. The kinds of sensitive and personal issues involved are likely to require high levels of listening skills, self-awareness, empathy and objectivity.  

Badly-handled initial conversations about grievances often lead to an escalation of conflict and an immediate feeling that formal processes will be the only option. Guidance has to distinguish clearly between an informal meeting with a line manager and a more structured mediation meeting — meaning the opportunity for at least two steps in the informal resolution response. We regularly hear of situations where someone is reluctant to try structured mediation because they’ve had a poor facilitated meeting with a line manager that’s been called ‘mediation’. 

Clear and detailed guidance is also needed around the best use of mediation. For example, the need to use an accredited mediator or trained facilitator who is independent and impartial wherever possible; and how informal mediation should be available at any time, including during a formal procedure (which should then be paused). The ACAS Code would benefit employers by outlining ways to use informal resolution more effectively as an outcome to a more formal process; recommending alternative means for resolving the concern should the first mediation prove to be unsuccessful, such as setting a specific review date as part of the follow up process to the fact find. 

There’s a particular need to address situations where serious cases are initially raised, around poor behaviours and bullying and harassment for example, but workers are reluctant to go further with a complaint; when managers have information on what might be happening but can’t do anything without the individual wanting to push for a resolution. Advice should be given on how it’s good practice for organisations to equip all workers with skills to have difficult conversations as a way of reaching an early resolution; and to review the information and decide if the concerns are serious enough to warrant further investigation without the permission of the worker who raised the problem. 

The risks from poor investigation practices, often cited in unfair dismissal and discrimination cases awarded against employers, need to be highlighted. Recent tribunal award statistics show mean unfair dismissal awards of £13,749 before legal fees, management time, settlement costs, reputational harm and the wider workplace disruption are included. We know staff are conducting investigations with little or no training and expertise, causing delays and poor decision-making. Its with this in mind that CMP developed its own extensive set of Best Practice Standards for Workplace Investigation.  

Issues raised by the growing use of AI need to be addressed head-on. Used carefully, AI can help workers speak up and put concerns into clear language, and HR deal with transcripts and administration. There are also significant risks. Inaccurate or fabricated content, loss of confidentiality, data protection breaches, bias and over-reliance on automated outputs — and ACAS needs to be explicit that AI must not replace human judgement in deciding facts, assessing credibility or determining outcomes. Any use of AI should be transparent and recorded in documentation. 

As an essential principle the Code should be considered the base level from which organisations establish their dispute resolution systems, not the pinnacle just to aim for. It should be clearly stated that most organisations should be able to take most of the steps, and smaller employers with fewer resources should be detailing what steps they were unable to take and why. 

UK employers can use the revised Code as a platform for improving workplace culture, experience and levels of trust and engagement among workers in general. But there has to be accountability.