How the Acas Principles Come Alive in Disciplinary Scenarios
- William Slivinsky
- Sep 10
- 4 min read
Facing a disciplinary at work? The Acas Code of Practice sets out standards like fairness, transparency, clear written rules, reasonableness, promptness, consistency, proper investigation, being told the case against you, a real chance to respond, and the right to appeal.
On paper, these sound straightforward — but what do they mean when you’re actually under investigation, suspended, or sat in a hearing? How can you identify them in real case scenarios and prepare for disciplinary or appeal hearings?
At UDO, we don’t just quote definitions. We show you how these principles play out in real workplace situations, and how you can use them to protect your rights.
Fairness & Transparency
What Acas says: Procedures should promote fairness and transparency.
In practice: Shifting allegations, missing documents, or withheld policies undermine both.
📌 Practical tip: Always request and compare all documentation (investigation notes, suspension letter, disciplinary invite, hearing minutes, and outcome letter) to expose inconsistencies.
Remember: your employer’s policies may form part of your contract of employment. If that is the case, any breach can also amount to a breach of contract.
Clear Written Rules
What Acas says: Rules should be set down in writing, specific, and clear.
In practice: You can’t defend yourself against a policy you were never shown.
This is a common error: the employer refers to a policy but fails to provide it before the disciplinary hearing, or it was never made accessible before the alleged misconduct. Ambiguous or unclear terms are also strong evidence that rules have not been applied fairly.
📌 Practical tip: If a policy was cited but not provided, request it in writing and raise this in your appeal or grivance if the disciplinary is still going on. If you were accused of breaching a policy that was never made accessible, that is also a strong defence. Similarly, if English is not your first language and you were disadvantaged in understanding the policy, this could raise issues of race discrimination.
Reasonableness
What Acas says: Actions must be reasonable and justified in the circumstances.
In practice: A rushed or shallow investigation rarely passes this test.
📌 Practical tip: Build a timeline. Check that the suspension letter, investigatory hearing minutes, and investigation report align. If the process was rushed, argue it was an unreasonable and flawed investigation. Always request witness statements and check whether enquiries reflect the paperwork.
Promptness
What Acas says: Issues should be raised and dealt with promptly, without unreasonable delay.
In practice: Long, unexplained gaps undermine fairness.
📌 Practical tip: Document delays should be raised as evidence of procedural unfairness. If you were called to a hearing about events that happened months earlier, establish when your employer first became aware of those events. Using “common sense” questioning for something long past is unfair if delays were not caused by you.
Consistency
What Acas says: Employers must act consistently.
In practice: If two employees commit similar misconduct but only one is dismissed, that’s inconsistent. It does not need to refer to the same time frame.
📌 Practical tip: Identify comparators and show how sanctions differed. This doesn’t just apply to dismissal or warnings — it also covers suspension. If one employee was not suspended but you were, despite facing similar allegations, that is also evidence of inconsistency.
Proper Investigation
What Acas says: Employers must carry out necessary investigations to establish the facts.
In practice: Missing or nonexistent witness statements are a clear weakness.
📌 Practical tip: Always request copies of witness accounts. If they don’t exist, argue the investigation was inadequate. Each time the employer relies on “someone’s account,” demand the actual statement or minutes. If the employer claims policy or GDPR prevents disclosure, this is a weak excuse. Removing names solves data issues, especially if you already know the witness GDPR is just totally inappropriate excuse to witheld the witness statments.
Being Told the Case Against You
What Acas says: Employees must be informed of the basis of the problem and given a chance to respond.
In practice: Vague invites or no mention of dismissal undermine fairness.
📌 Practical tip: If dismissal wasn’t mentioned in the invite letter, argue you were denied proper notice. If new allegations were introduced at the hearing or the decision was based on issues not listed in the invite, you have strong evidence of unfairness.
A Real Chance to Respond
What Acas says: Employees should be able to put their case and be accompanied at hearings.
In practice: Yes/no questioning with no closing comments amounts to no real chance to respond.
📌 Practical tip: You must be given the opportunity to ask your own questions and provide closing comments. If you weren’t asked “Do you want to add anything else?” at the end, or if you were prevented from asking questions, raise this as evidence of a flawed process disallowing you chance to respond,
Right to Appeal
What Acas says: Employees must be allowed to appeal formal decisions.
In practice: If appeal routes are unclear, your rights are undermined.
📌 Practical tip: Always lodge an appeal, even if you think it won’t succeed — tribunals expect it. Employers rarely say “you do not have the right of appeal.” More often, the right is simply left out of the outcome letter. That omission itself is a breach of the right to appeal. If that was the case and you did not appeal, you will have evidance to put to Tribunal .
Final Thought
This post bridges Acas principles with UDO’s practical reality. Each term is not just jargon — it’s something you can test, evidence, and rely on when defending your case. It also has been explained in other article which you can read here.
Comments