Five Days to Appeal: How a Flawed HR Convention Became a Barrier to Workplace Justice — And Why ACAS Must Act

There are many small injustices in the modern workplace — the quiet, procedural ones that rarely make headlines but shape the daily reality of workers facing disciplinary action. Among the most persistent is the widespread employer practice of giving workers just five working days to appeal a disciplinary outcome. It appears in policy after policy, as if it were a fixed rule of employment law. It is not. It has no statutory basis and no foundation in case law. Yet it is treated as gospel.

This arbitrary deadline has become so normalised that many workers assume it must be legally mandated. In truth, it is nothing more than a managerial convenience that has hardened into convention — a convention that routinely undermines fairness, equality, and access to justice.

At our most recent AGM, Solidarity members recognised this problem and passed a motion committing the union to campaign against the five‑day norm. It is a commitment rooted in both principle and lived experience, and it deserves to be taken seriously.

A Deadline Without a Law

The first and most important fact is this: no UK law requires a five‑day appeal window.
The Employment Rights Act is silent on appeal deadlines.
The Equality Act is silent on appeal deadlines.
ACAS — whose Code of Practice tribunals take into account — does not mandate five days.

ACAS guidance simply states that employees should appeal “as soon as possible or within the time period set out in the employer’s procedure.” That is all. The oft‑quoted “five working days” appears only in non‑binding examples, not in the Code itself. It is not a standard. It is not a requirement. It is not even a recommendation.

ACAS also says nothing about disciplinary minutes — nothing about when they must be provided, nothing about whether the appeal clock should start only after they are received. This omission is striking, because in practice many workers receive the outcome letter before they receive the minutes. They are expected to appeal a decision without access to the record of what was said. No fair‑minded person could consider that reasonable.

Where Five Days Really Came From

If the five‑day rule is not law, where did it come from?
The answer is depressingly simple: HR templates.

For decades, large HR consultancies have produced standardised disciplinary procedures for employers. These templates — designed primarily for managerial convenience — often included a five‑day appeal window. Over time, this figure became embedded in employer‑side “best practice” documents and was repeated so often that it acquired an aura of legitimacy.

But repetition is not justification.
A convention is not a principle.
And managerial convenience is not fairness.

Why Five Days Is Not Enough

A disciplinary outcome can be life‑changing. It may affect a worker’s job, income, reputation, mental health, and future employability. Yet employers routinely expect workers to:

absorb the decision
request and review the minutes
gather evidence
seek union representation
obtain medical or occupational health information
prepare written grounds of appeal

…all within five working days.

This is unrealistic for anyone — and impossible for many.

Workers who are stressed, anxious, or traumatised by the process are disadvantaged.
Workers with caring responsibilities are disadvantaged.
Workers without immediate access to a rep are disadvantaged.
And disabled and neurodivergent workers — who may need more time to process information, gather medical evidence, or communicate effectively — are systematically disadvantaged.

Under the Equality Act 2010, a rigid five‑day deadline is a Provision, Criterion or Practice (PCP). If it places disabled workers at a substantial disadvantage, employers must make reasonable adjustments. Yet most disciplinary policies say nothing about adjustments and instead sometimes rely on vague “management discretion.” , if they mention anything at all. Discretion is not compliance. Adjustments are not optional.

A deadline that cannot flex is a deadline that discriminates. This should be stated clearly in any employer disciplinary policy.

Appeals Are a Safeguard, Not a Sprint

The right to appeal is not an administrative nicety. It is a fundamental safeguard against flawed investigations, procedural errors, bias, and disproportionate sanctions. A right that cannot be exercised meaningfully is not a right at all.

Many unionised workplaces already use 14 days as standard — and nothing collapses. Employers continue to function. Processes continue. Justice is better served. The only thing that changes is that workers get a fair chance to defend themselves.

What ACAS Should Do: Time for the Guidance to Catch Up With Reality

If the five‑day appeal window has become entrenched across UK workplaces, it is partly because ACAS — unintentionally — has allowed ambiguity to flourish. While ACAS does not mandate five days, and does not prohibit longer deadlines, its guidance contains two structural weaknesses that employers routinely exploit:

It offers “five working days” without proper context or caveat.
It says nothing about disciplinary minutes and how that affects when the appeal clock should start.

This silence has consequences. Employers treat the example as a ceiling, not a floor. They treat the absence of rules about minutes as permission to delay them. And they seldom reference Equality Act compliance or its affect on time limits.

Solidarity believes ACAS should now take responsibility for closing these gaps.

1. ACAS should require that the appeal period begins only once the worker has received both the minutes and outcome.

Natural justice demands that workers see the record of what was said. ACAS should state that:

minutes must be provided promptly
the appeal window begins only after the worker receives them and the outcome
delays in providing minutes automatically extend the deadline

3. ACAS should incorporate Equality Act duties directly into its disciplinary guidance.

ACAS should state that:

fixed deadlines are a PCP
employers must consider reasonable adjustments
adjustments are a legal duty, not a matter of discretion
policies must explicitly reference this duty

4. ACAS should recommend a default appeal window of at least 14 calendar days.

This is already standard in many unionised workplaces and poses no operational difficulty.

5. ACAS should update its guidelines to reflect modern, evidence‑based practice.

The five‑day figure comes from outdated HR templates, not fairness. It should be replaced with a timeframe grounded in accessibility, equality, and justice.

ACAS guidance shapes employer behaviour. When the guidance is vague, outdated, or silent on key issues, workers suffer. Solidarity’s position is simple:

ACAS should not merely reflect common practice — it should lead it.
And it should lead it in the direction of fairness, accessibility, and equality.

Solidarity’s Mandate for Change

At our AGM, members passed a motion recognising:

that the five‑day deadline has no legal basis
that it originates from employer‑centric templates
that it disproportionately harms disabled, unwell, and unsupported workers
that meaningful access to justice requires adequate time

The AGM resolved that Solidarity will:

adopt 14 calendar days as our bargaining position
produce guidance for reps on challenging short deadlines
campaign publicly and privately for employers to abandon the five‑day norm
support members who miss deadlines by arguing for extensions on equality and fairness grounds
review disciplinary policies across recognised workplaces and target those with unreasonable appeal windows

This is not symbolic. It is a practical commitment to improving procedural fairness for every worker we represent.

A Call to Employers: Fairness Is Not an Administrative Burden

Employers often defend the five‑day rule by claiming they need “certainty” or “efficiency.” But fairness is not the enemy of efficiency. Rushed appeals create more disputes, more grievances, and more legal risk. If an employer can take weeks or months to schedule a disciplinary hearing, they can wait 14 days for an appeal.

A fair process protects everyone — including the employer.

A Call to Workers: You Deserve Time, Dignity, and Justice

If you are facing a disciplinary outcome, you deserve:

time to understand the decision
time to seek advice
time to gather evidence
time to prepare a proper appeal

You deserve a process that recognises you as a human being, not a box to be ticked.

Solidarity will continue to fight for that — in negotiations, in campaigns, and in every workplace where our members are subjected to unreasonable deadlines.

Five days is not enough.
It never was.
And together, we can change it.

By Pat Harrington

Reform UK signals plans to roll back key employment rights and worker protection

Solidarity is a non‑party‑political trade union. We are not affiliated to any political party and we don’t maintain a political fund. Our responsibility is to keep members informed when political proposals—by any party—could affect your rights, your security, or your working conditions.

Overview

Recent public statements from Reform UK’s leadership outline a programme of sweeping deregulation. These proposals include repealing new employment rights, removing protections for renters, and reversing measures designed to strengthen job security.

Union leaders across sectors have raised concerns that these plans would significantly weaken workers’ rights and shift power further towards employers.

What Reform UK says it intends to remove

Based on their own statements, Reform UK is proposing to:

Scrap new employment‑rights rules
Remove new protections for renters
Repeal regulations designed to improve job security
Roll back environmental and industrial regulations they describe as “daft” or burdensome

Their argument is that these rules “kill jobs” and “hinder growth,” and that removing them would reduce inflation and lower bills.

Rights and protections at risk

Union leaders have warned that the following rights could be lost if these proposals were implemented:

1. Ban on fire‑and‑rehire practices

New laws preventing employers from dismissing staff and rehiring them on worse terms could be scrapped.

2. Protections against exploitative zero‑hour contracts

Rules designed to curb the most abusive forms of insecure work may be removed.

3. Stronger unfair‑dismissal protections

Recent improvements that extend protection from unfair dismissal could be rolled back.

4. Parental leave and sick‑pay rights

Opposition parties and unions warn that hard‑won rights in these areas may be weakened or removed.

5. Local government pension security

Reform UK has said it would block new entrants to local government pension schemes and consolidate them into a sovereign wealth fund—raising concerns about long‑term retirement security.

6. Housing protections for renters

Rolling back new rental protections would affect millions of working people who rely on secure, safe housing.

Why this matters for members

If enacted, these proposals could affect:

Your job security
Your protection from unfair dismissal
Your rights around sick pay and parental leave
Your ability to avoid exploitative contracts
Your pension prospects
Your housing stability

These are not abstract issues—they shape the daily lives of working people.

Solidarity’s position

Solidarity does not support or oppose political parties.
Our duty is to:

Inform members about political proposals that may affect their rights
Defend and advance workplace protections
Ensure members understand the implications of changes being proposed

We will continue to monitor developments and provide clear, factual updates.

By Maria Camara

Unfair dismissal – A quiet bombshell

Last week the government quietly dropped a (little) bombshell, by adding an ‘Unfair Dismissal Factsheet’ to this page on the Employment Rights Act 2025.

The government’s quiet publication of a new Unfair Dismissal Factsheet marks a significant shift in the UK’s employment landscape, signalling the most substantial expansion of dismissal protections in decades. The update, added without fanfare to the Employment Rights Act 2025 factsheet collection, confirms that from 1 January 2027, the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal will fall from two years to six months, and the long‑standing cap on compensatory awards will be abolished.

The changes amount to a fundamental recalibration of power in the workplace. Reducing the qualifying period to six months brings millions more workers within the scope of unfair dismissal protection far earlier in their employment. The removal of the compensation cap—currently the lower of £118,223 or 52 weeks’ pay—means tribunals will be able to award losses in full, a shift that will be particularly consequential for higher‑earning employees and for employers accustomed to predictable financial exposure. This is not a minor technical tweak; it reshapes the risk profile of every dismissal decision.

What is striking is the government’s insistence that no further consultation will take place. Ministers describe the measures as the product of “constructive, government‑convened conversations” between unions and business groups, but the quiet publication of the factsheet—rather than a ministerial announcement—suggests an awareness of the political sensitivity. Employers now face a compressed window to overhaul probation policies, performance management processes, and dismissal procedures before the 2027 commencement date.

For workers, the reforms promise earlier security, stronger bargaining power, and a meaningful check on one‑sided flexibility. For employers, they represent a decisive end to the era in which the two‑year qualifying period acted as a buffer against litigation risk. The factsheet may have been published quietly, but its implications are anything but: this is a structural shift in UK employment law, and organisations that fail to prepare now will feel the consequences later.

By Maria Camara

Why Delaying Retirement Age Harms Workers

The proposal to push the state pension age beyond 68 feels like a betrayal. It undermines the deal we’ve earned through decades of work. As RMT General Secretary Eddie Dempsey warns, “Raising the pension age even further isn’t just cruel and unnecessary, it’s a slap in the face to the very people who keep this country running.” Pensions are deferred wages—every National Insurance pound was meant to fund our retirement, not vanish into general taxation.

Remember, National Insurance began in 1946 as a separate, ring-fenced pot to guarantee our pensions. Over time, governments folded NI into general taxation, breaking the direct link between what we paid and what we receive. That erosion of trust leaves us exposed every time ministers launch a “review” of retirement age.

Private pensions were supposed to fill the gap, yet only 44% of working-age adults hold one. Nearly 30% of people over 55 rely solely on the state pension. The average private pot is around £35,000. This amount is hardly enough to generate an income to live on. When savings or private pension income fall short, the state pension is all that stands between you and hardship.

Our bodies don’t keep pace with policy deadlines. By age 75, more than 70% of us have at least one chronic condition. By 85, that number climbs to nearly 90%. Almost half struggle with everyday tasks. “Asking people to labour an extra six, even eight years effectively steals the dignity of retirement,” says Pat Harrington of Solidarity union. Forcing us to wait until bones ache and energy fades robs every dream of travel, family time, or simply resting.

Worse still is the uncertainty. With regular reviews, whispers of ages 69, 70 or even 74, how can anyone plan? You don’t know when your last pay cheque arrives. So, you delay home-buying. You hesitate on pension contributions. You hoard cash instead of investing. That paralysis can cost you a lifetime of compound growth—and the financial freedom you thought you were building.

We’ve earned the right to step off the treadmill when our bodies demand it. Policymakers should restore NI’s ring-fencing. They should tax wealth fairly. Loopholes need to be closed. Policymakers must secure the retirement we’ve already paid for. Retirement isn’t a privilege to be delayed at will—it’s the promise of rest after a lifetime of work.

Government Urged Not to Resurrect Fees for UK Employment Tribunals

484 words, 3 minutes read time.

In a move that has sparked controversy, the UK government is considering the reintroduction of fees for employment tribunals. These fees, previously scrapped in 2017, are now being reconsidered, and unions and workers’ rights groups are voicing their concerns.

The Background:

Back in 2013, the government introduced fees for employment tribunals, ranging from £390 to £1,200 depending on the case. However, this fee regime faced significant backlash. The supreme court ruled that it hindered access to justice, violating both UK and EU law. Consequently, the government was forced to abandon these fees.

The Current Proposal:

Now, the government is consulting on bringing back employment tribunal fees. The proposed fees start at £55 per claim, with an additional appeal fee for each judgment, decision, direction, or order being appealed against. While the initial fee can cover claims on behalf of multiple individuals, the appeal process could still result in significant costs for claimants.

Unions and Workers’ Rights Groups React:

A coalition of 48 organizations, including the TUC, Citizens Advice, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Fawcett Society, and Maternity Action, has expressed strong opposition to the reintroduction of fees. They argue that:

Exploitation Concerns: Bringing back fees risks pricing many people out of workplace justice. It could deter individuals from lodging worthy claims and give a green light to bad employers to exploit their workers.
Undercutting Good Employers: By allowing fees, bad employers may undercut good ones, knowing they are less likely to face claims in the employment tribunal.
Enforcement of Employment Rights: The workers’ rights groups emphasize that employment rights are only real if they are enforced. Reintroducing fees could undermine workers’ ability to seek justice.

The groups opposing the fees said in a joint statement: “Workers seeking recovery of wage theft, unpaid redundancy pay and compensation for unfair dismissal are to be asked to stump up extra money at an incredibly tough moment in their lives.”

“Access to justice must never be contingent on your ability to pay.”

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said: “All working people should be able to enforce their rights. But introducing fees for tribunals puts yet another hurdle in the way of those seeking justice at their most vulnerable moment.”

Government’s Stance:

The government contends that the proposed fees are proportionate and affordable, aligning with the supreme court judgment. It argues that users should contribute to the running costs of tribunals, similar to users of other courts and tribunals. Additionally, help will be available for those unable to afford the fee.

The consultation period runs until March 25, during which stakeholders can provide feedback. The government claims it aims to strike a balance between access to justice and financial sustainability for the tribunal system.

While the debate continues, the fate of employment tribunal fees hangs in the balance, affecting workers’ rights and the pursuit of justice in the workplace.

By Pat Harrington

Picture credit: Image by Daniel Bone from Pixabay