UK employers reassess workplace investigations as Acas consultation closes

Acas has just closed its consultation on a major update to its disciplinary and grievance Code of Practice, with the way employers handle workplace investigations among the issues under scrutiny. The draft puts greater emphasis on resolving concerns early and avoiding unnecessary escalation, while also proposing that workplace fact-finding should be objective, reasonable and proportionate.
The consultation also highlights concerns over increasingly long and complex grievances and asks whether Acas guidance needs to address the growing use of AI in disciplinary and grievance processes. That comes as employers are already seeing AI change the nature of the complaints landing with HR. We’ll speak to employment lawyer Sarah Munro about what she is seeing and why getting the investigation right from the outset is becoming increasingly important.
The Acas consultation closed yesterday and Acas expects the updated Code to come into force in 2027. Acas says its aim is to encourage earlier resolution of workplace concerns, reducing the time, cost and stress associated with formal disputes.
But the consultation also reflects a changing landscape for grievances. Acas says stakeholders have raised concerns about unnecessarily long and complex written grievances, which can delay resolution and escalate tensions. It also specifically asks whether the Code or accompanying guidance should address issues arising from the use of AI.
That closely reflects what we have been seeing across our client base. I put it to Sarah Munro that there appears to be a definite trend with workplace investigations becoming increasingly complex:
Sarah Munro: “Yes, you’re right Joe. Particularly, I would say, over the last five years we as a team have seen a massive uptick in clients coming to us seeking support on complex investigations. The reason, I think, they have become increasingly complex is people are just naturally a bit more litigious. People are upset about things and speak up more, which is a really positive thing, you would want your employees to raise concerns, but we're seeing that happening a lot more. Also, in the last year with the increased use of AI, that has really added an additional dimension because in the past we would see a grievance that had maybe five points that the individual wanted you to raise, or investigate, but now we are seeing grievances and complaints that can run to twenty pages because somebody has put it through AI which has helped bolster their original concerns. So they are the two main points. We're just seeing people want to speak up more, and also then relying on AI to generate these complaints. The other point that I think is important to note is that we get grievances through different routes. Some people will raise them through a traditional grievance route under a grievance policy procedure, but increasingly we're seeing people raising them through whistleblowing portals and hotlines and wanting to remain anonymous. That adds an additional layer of complexity if someone doesn't want to be known because you're then conducting an investigation based on documents, or emails, and not actually able to speak to the person.”
Joe Glavina: “The draft Code also puts greater emphasis on the fact-finding stage, saying it should be objective, reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the issue. So, when a complex complaint first lands with HR, how should employers decide who is best placed to investigate it?
Sarah Munro: “I think the key word is to triage. You need to triage the investigation when it comes in. So it will come in either through a normal grievance process or through a whistleblowing hotline and someone within the organisation really needs to be tasked with looking at that complaint and thinking who is best placed to deal with this? It may be fed back into a normal grievance process that an HR person will do, it may be that somebody within the business needs to investigate it because it's very complex or sector specific or technical, but it might be that you need to outsource it, and the cases that we see coming out are ones where there's no capacity within an organisation to look at it. People don't feel they have the expertise, or there's a real sensitivity around it, whether that's the content of the grievance, or the complaint, or that it involves really senior individuals, and there's a worry that anyone internally would not be suitably independent. So for me, you can really make or break an investigation at that first step. If you can triage it properly, find the right person, whether that's in the organisation or external, to deal with it then that can shape the investigation going forward because a good and well scoped out investigation really stands the investigator in good stead and allows them to do the best possible job in often very difficult circumstances. So getting that structure right at the beginning and getting the right person to do it is key and can set you up for success and, hopefully, protect the business from legal risk because if you have a good, independent, well-scoped investigation, you are hopefully going to expose you and the business to less risk.”
So, the key message is that as workplace complaints become more complex, getting the investigation properly structured from the outset is increasingly important.
We’ll be returning to this subject in a fortnight in a special HRNews Spotlight programme on managing complex workplace investigations. Sarah will be joining us again, alongside Kate Dodd who heads our Employment Plus team, when we’ll look in more detail at how employers should approach complex investigations, including the handling of sensitive interviews. So do watch this space.