The right to be accompanied: using a workplace companion before tribunal

Start with the hearing, not the job title

Sections 10 to 13 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 give a worker the right to be accompanied when the employer requires or invites them to a disciplinary or grievance hearing and the worker reasonably requests a companion. Where the provision applies, the employer must permit one companion chosen by the worker from the statutory categories. The right concerns workers, not only people whose contract labels them an employee.

For this statutory purpose, a disciplinary hearing is one that could result in a formal warning, some other action by the employer, or the confirmation of a warning or other action. That can include an appeal against a disciplinary outcome. The label placed on the meeting should not distract from what it could actually decide.

A grievance hearing falls within the right when it concerns the performance of a duty owed by the employer to the worker. Acas gives the examples of a complaint that the employer is not honouring the worker’s contract or is breaching legislation. A general workplace disagreement does not automatically fit that statutory definition.

Who can act as a companion?

The statutory companion must be another of the employer’s workers, an official employed by a trade union, or a trade union official whom the union has reasonably certified in writing as experienced or trained in acting as a companion. The proposed companion still has to agree to take on the role.

Maya does not need to find a colleague if she would prefer union support. Acas guidance says a worker may ask an official from any trade union, whether or not the worker belongs to that union or the employer recognises it. An employer should therefore engage with the companion’s eligibility, rather than reject the request simply because the union is not recognised in the workplace.

A family member, friend or other supporter does not have the same automatic statutory entitlement to attend. GOV.UK explains that an employer does not have to agree to that choice unless the employment contract requires it. The worker should still check the contract and workplace procedure: either may offer more than the statutory minimum.

Make the request clear and early

The Acas Code says that a request to be accompanied does not have to be in writing or made within a fixed timeframe. Reasonableness depends on the circumstances, but the worker should allow enough time for the employer to deal with the companion’s attendance and, where possible, identify the companion and their category. A short email is not a statutory formality; it is a practical way to remove ambiguity and preserve a record.

Maya can identify the hearing, give the proposed companion’s name and union or workplace connection, confirm availability and ask for a response. If she needs the companion’s certification or employer approval under a contractual procedure, early notice gives everyone time to resolve that point.

If the chosen companion cannot attend at the employer’s proposed time, section 10 requires a postponement to the worker’s proposed alternative where it is reasonable and falls before the end of five working days beginning with the first working day after the original date. The worker should offer a concrete alternative rather than simply asking for an open-ended delay.

Prepare the case before discussing the performance

A companion is more useful when both people understand the allegation or grievance, the documents and the desired outcome. The Acas Code says a disciplinary notification should contain enough information about the allegation and its possible consequences to enable preparation, normally accompanied by written evidence. It also calls for reasonable time to prepare. If those materials are missing, the worker can identify precisely what is needed rather than make a general complaint about unfairness.

Maya and her companion can build a short chronology, match each important point to a document and separate what Maya knows directly from what someone else has said. They can also identify questions that need asking and points that require clarification. This is preparation for the worker’s own participation, not a script that the companion must deliver verbatim.

The companion assists; the worker still answers

The employer must allow the companion to address the hearing to put the worker’s case, sum it up and respond on the worker’s behalf to views expressed at the hearing. The companion must also be allowed to confer with the worker. The statute does not require the employer to let the companion answer questions on the worker’s behalf, speak when the worker does not want that, or prevent anyone else from making their contribution.

That distinction should shape the rehearsal. If the hearing turns on what Maya saw, said or did, she should be ready to give that account herself. Her companion can help frame the case and respond to the employer’s position, but cannot become a substitute witness.

The companion’s preparation may produce a useful chronology and document index, but the worker will still need to assess any later tribunal route separately.

If the employer refuses

The worker should first establish what is being refused and why. A refusal of a family friend is different from a refusal of an eligible union official; an inconvenient companion is different from an unreasonable request. A concise written response can identify the statutory category, attach the original request, ask the employer to reconsider and propose any permissible alternative date. The invitation, correspondence and notes of any oral refusal may become important later.

Acas advises trying to resolve the problem informally, through a grievance or through an appeal before notifying it of an intended tribunal claim. Before making most employment tribunal claims, the claimant must notify Acas, which will offer early conciliation; participation in conciliation is voluntary. Internal resolution may correct the hearing arrangements without a claim.

Section 11 allows a worker to complain to an Employment Tribunal about an employer’s failure, or threatened failure, to comply with the statutory accompaniment or postponement requirements. Where the complaint succeeds, the tribunal must order compensation not exceeding two weeks’ pay, subject to the statutory cap on a week’s pay. That is a specific remedy for this infringement, not a measure of the merits of the underlying disciplinary or grievance dispute.

The current section 11 time limit is three months beginning with the date of the failure or threat, with a further period only where the tribunal considers that reasonable because earlier presentation was not reasonably practicable. The legislation also applies the early-conciliation extension rules. A worker should calculate the date from the actual event and not assume that an internal appeal or a different claim deadline extends it.

Section 12 separately protects a worker against detriment for exercising or seeking to exercise these rights, or for accompanying another worker. A dismissal for that reason, or where it is the principal reason, is treated as unfair and the usual qualifying-period rule does not apply. Any such dismissal or related claim requires its own prompt assessment rather than reliance on the section 11 timetable.