Acas Code Of Conduct Research
ACAS was formed from the result of Trade Union and Labor Relations Act. In 1974, ACAS was called as the Conciliation and Arbitration Service. However, it was renamed as the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service in January 1975. Thereafter, Acas is made as a statutory body but it is under the terms of the EPA 1975 (Employment Protection Act 1975) (Concannon, H.M.G, 1978). It is split into 4 areas which are the collective conciliation, advisory service, individual conciliation and promotion work (Susan Curtis, Dennis Wright, 2001).
The purpose of Acas (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) is to make better use of the better employment relations to upgrade the working life and the organization. Their motto is that prevention …show more content…
is always better than cure. As for their mission, it is to improve the organization’s performance and effectiveness through an independent and impartial service so that disputes within the organization can be resolved (source by ACAS Annual Report, 1996)(Michael Sanderson, James Taggart, 1999). They provide best practice just by giving simple advices and services to the members in the workplace. Besides that, advice and guidance are also provided to the Government and social partners.
Discipline is defined as the training of mind and character together to make obedience as a habit and self control. In general, it also refers as a punishment for the wrong doing (Hamsioglu & Didem Pasaoglu, 2011). When rules are been broken in the workplace or organization, punishment will be given to the people who violated the rules depending on the consequences of their actions (Cole, Nina D, 2008).
Disciplinary rules are required because in the organization, without rules the employees are free to do anything they want and when something happens they are able to get away with it. For example, the employees do not have to be worry about not completing their work and just thinking of earning a free salary by doing nothing. Therefore, it would be more likely to be like a zoo than a productive environment. It is so important that disciplinary rules exists as it is to let the employees know that there is an expected standard to achieve and to provide those managers with necessary authority. However, the procedures should include the principles of natural justice to make better employment relations. Natural justice is by means of treating the employees with fairness (McGuinness, Charles, 2011). The fairness is measured by few elements. Firstly, all matters shall be raised and deal with little or no delay. Each of the party shall act consistently and necessary investigations have to be carried out to bring about the relevant facts so that natural justice can be upheld (Payne, Richard, 2008). Employers shall notify the employees the basis of the problem and allowing them to put their case. Lastly, employees should be able to be accompanied during any formal disciplinary meeting or hearings (Hunt, Dennis, 2005).
An example of tribunal case ‘William Hicks & Partners v Nadal’, Nadal’s unfair dismissal claim was upheld by tribunal based on the basis that the employer did not treat her fairly before reaching the decision to dismiss and the employer appealed. The tribunal decision was then upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). They said that for a dismissal to be fair and in term of natural justice, Nadal as the employee should have be given a chance to tell their case (Eversheds, 2005)
There are few stages of disciplinary procedure as not all procedure is usable for all misconduct. The first stage is by giving written warning while the second stage is by giving final written warning. Last stage would be dismissal or other sanction. For minor problems, it will normally deal with informally such as advice, counseling and etc. In the first stage, it would either be verbal warning or written warning which is a legal requirement in UK. When the employee does not meet the expected standard, the company will usually give a verbal warning and advise them to correct the problems (Galashan, Susan, 2009). If the misconduct is more serious which eventually causes a loss or bad reputation to the company then a written warning will be given to the employee. The second stage occurs when the employee fail to improve upon the previous warning. A final written warning will be issued to the employee by the person at least one level above the immediate supervisor. A record will be kept by the company to keep a close eye on the employee as well. As for the last stage, dismissal will be imposed to the employee if they still choose to ignore the previous warnings. This formal procedure can only be taken action by the senior human resources or personnel manager in the department as they are the one responsible for the disciplinary issue ((Saundry, Richard; Jones, Carol; Antcliff, Valerie, 2011). The employee will be given a dismissal without notice if they commit serious offences such as fighting, theft and etc.
However, organizations normally use the mixture of punitive and corrective approaches. As said by Fenley, 1998 the punitive approach is distinguish through the basis of authoritarian and result in arbitrary treatment while the corrective approach is to encourage self-discipline. The punishment will be fair, consistent and predictable plus the term of natural justice will be bringing in as an important aspect. Corrective discipline is also a type of punishment that is in sophisticated form.
From 2004 to 2009, the Codes of Practice had been changed based on legislation.
In 2004, the statutory procedure has been introduced so that the employer has to follow in order to avoid automatic adverse tribunal rulings. The amount of single tribunal claims are proved that they declined from 65,364 to 52000 in the year 2004 to 2006 ((Antcliff, Valerie; Saundry, Richard, 2009). The parties that are involved in statutory procedure mostly failed. They drew the same conclusion that the statutory procedure seemed to be unsuccessful (Griffiths, Julie, 2007). The measures are also recommended to be much more simple and flexible and the statutory procedures have to be repealed and the 2004 code is deemed to be inflexible but it is perhaps a classic case of good policy (Gibbons, 2007). Due to the procedures, problems that can be solved informally have now forced to use the formal …show more content…
processes.
The purpose of the Acas 2004 is to provide an orderly employment relations and treating every member in the workplace with consistency and fairness while Acas 2009 is designed to help the members in the workplace to deal with situations regarding discipline. Consistency and fairness is important to the employees because without it, the organization is unable to gain commitment from them (Wilkinson, 1999). The disciplinary procedures in Acas 2004 encourage improvement towards employees that have a bad record or perform an unsatisfactory performance previously which is almost identical in Code of Practice 2000. It does not simply means by imposing a punishment to them to solve the problem. It has to depend on the performance issue in order to give detailed and separate advices. As for the Acas 2009, such views are not mentioned in it. There would not be a separate advice given on different performance issues as it applies the same to every problem according to the stage.
In the Acas Codes of Practice 2000/2004, the important transactions will be encouraged first and the first warning given in Acas 2000 is in two forms either in verbal or written form while in 2004 it will only be in written form.
It also indicates a specific length of time on how long the warning will last. For example, the first warning given to the employee will last for six months. The essential features of the procedures will be listed in a place together and the term of natural justice is not mentioned in the Codes. Besides that, it also focuses on the importance of the written records which states the record of the employees. In extra, the Codes lists out the cases of the gross misconduct for example cases like theft, fraud, drug taking and etc which are serious (Hunt, Dennis,
2005).
As for the Acas Codes of Practice 2009, the informal dealings will not be encouraged first and the first warning given will no more verbally. The first warning given will be written despite the type of misconduct. The warning given to the employee will not indicate to them on how long it will last. The essential features of the procedures will not be listed as well and there is not a specific mention regarding the natural justice term. The records of the employees past that are written are not given any special importance in it. The cases for gross misconduct indicated will not be listed as mentioned under the 2009 Code.
The Acas Code intends to help the employees and employers in the workplace to have a more flexible and simpler approach to handle disciplinary procedures but in the 2009 Code, it is said that the code gives less protection to the employees (Westall, Paula, 2009). This is because in the 2009 code, there are some disadvantages to the employees. As said in the 2009 Code, there will be no more verbally action against the employees that made any misconduct. This shows that there isn’t any chance given to them to improve themselves rather than just giving them a written warning. Due to this, it might cause them to be having hatred instead of regrets and might end up with a bigger problem. As said in the proverb, a quiet word is often all that is required to solve a problem. In this case, it is more simple and flexible to the employer but it does not benefit the employees because the term natural justice is not emphasised in the 2009 code.
In the 2000/2004 Code, it does not bring advantage to the employees as there is no natural justice in it. The employees are forced to obey and do everything said by the employer. They do not have the authority to reject as well. They might ended up disobey the rules one day and the company will impose a dismissal to the employee who refuses to obey the rules and regulations (Jenkins, Dela, 1996).
Besides that, when the employers gain more power to control the employees they might have more desire for flexibility and it automatically weakens the employees access for their fairness. Therefore, the employees and managers have to understand how they are to be used. It is a good practice to keep the written record so that the company could keep track on those employees that have a bad record as in the 2004 Code. However, in the 2004 Code it brings a disadvantage to the smaller employers. It is because when things can be solved easily but they choose to focus more on the procedure and written communication causes it to be counter-cultural and only lead the problem to become worst instead of solving it.
Conclusion, disciplinary rules are important to the employers in an organization as it helps them guide the employee to have a better behavior and enhance the performance of their work. Besides that, the rules have to be simple and easy to be understood and it is related to the objective of the organization. As for the ACAS 2004 and 2009, both of the Codes have their own advantages and disadvantages depending on which aspect. ACAS 2004 focus more on the term natural justice which provides fairness to the employee while the ACAS 2009 focus more on the procedures so that employers are able to gain more flexibility. In my opinion, it is hard to combine natural justice and flexibility for the sake of benefits towards the employee and employer together. However, in the future the ACAS might be developed to a stage that covers both natural justice and flexibility.
(1906 Words)
References
(Adrian Wilkinson, 1999), Employment relations in SMEs, Employee Relations Volume: 21 Issue: 3 Available from Emerald http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0142-5455&volume=21&issue=3&articleid=879689&show=html [Accessed on 3rd March 2013]
(Antcliff, Valerie; Saundry, Richard, 2009), Accompaniment, Workplace Representation and Disciplinary Outcomes in British Workplaces – Just a Formality?, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 47 Issue 1, p100-121. 22p. 5 Charts. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.2008.00709.x. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=16&sid=e374db7a-ea9c-4c91-a354-e9dd69c6a7ee%40sessionmgr14&hid=120[Accessed on 5th March 2013] (Cole, Nina D, 2008), The Effects of Differences in Explanations, Employee Attributions, Type of Infraction, and Discipline Severity on Perceived Fairness of Employee Discipline, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences (Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences), Vol. 25 Issue 2, p107-120. 14p. DOI: 10.1002/CJAS.57. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9454d825-abfe-416b-8833-bb1e4127c80f%40sessionmgr11&vid=2&hid=12 [Accessed on 5th March 2013] (Concannon, H.M.G, 1978), The growth of arbitration work in ACAS, Industrial Relations Journal. 1978), Vol. 9 Issue 1. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=843fef61-6b9f-4328-a93e-dfa2166e189e%40sessionmgr13&hid=27 [Accessed on 4th March 2013]
(Eversheds, 2005), CASE ROUND UP, Personnel Today, 09595848 Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=e33ea874-db7c-4e2f-acd1-3cd7e3cb5ce7%40sessionmgr14&vid=1&hid=1&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=19013760[Accessed on 4th March 2013] (Galashan, Susan, 2007), More questions answered on the new Acas code of practice, People Management, Vol. 15 Issue 16, p29-29. 2/3p. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=e374db7a-ea9c-4c91-a354-e9dd69c6a7ee%40sessionmgr14&hid=12[Accessed on 7th March 2013] (Griffiths, Julie, 2007). People Management, After the resolution, Vol. 13 Issue 8, p18-19. 2p. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=11&sid=ee1c88f8-e18a-4e8c-8541-ef1c4888c3c7%40sessionmgr13&hid=22 [Accessed on 4th March 2013]
(Gibbons, 2007), Better Dispute Resolution, A Review of Employment Dispute Resolution in Great Britain. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f7994ce5-0253-4eef-a2ee-c7a19fa41451%40sessionmgr11&vid=5&hid=12 [Accessed on 4th March 2013]
(Hamsioglu, Didem Pasaoglu, 2011), Global Conference on Business & Finance Proceedings, Vol. 6 Issue 2, p556-567. 12p. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=7dcdfb94-0b1f-4090-b398-d506f76e8c8c%40sessionmgr4&hid=120 [Accessed on 4th March 2013]
(Hunt, Dennis, 2005), Chapter 5:Disciplinary procedures step-by-step, Dismissal & Grievance Procedures, p44-56. 13p. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&sid=e374db7a-ea9c-4c91-a354-e9dd69c6a7ee%40sessionmgr14&hid=12[Accessed on 4th March 2013] (Hunt, Dennis, 2005), Chapter 3: Disciplinary rules, Dismissal & Grievance Procedures,p26-31. 6p. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=e374db7a-ea9c-4c91-a354-e9dd69c6a7ee%40sessionmgr14&hid=12[Accessed on 2nd March 2013]
(Jenkins, Dela, 1996), Building Positive Relations at Work. Select Knowledge Limited Available from Google Scholar http://books.google.com.my/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5pnUGan6cfoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=acas+employee+obey&ots=Qe_T-_Agu5&sig=jZdpRQSlO5AM9nyUfBI8QvZmmvU#v=onepage&q=acas%20employee%20obey&f=false[Accessed on 8th March 2013] (McGuinness, Charles, 2011),new employment law – the difference between would and could, Human Resources Magazine, Vol. 16 Issue 3, p24-25. 2p. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&sid=e374db7a-ea9c-4c91-a354-e9dd69c6a7ee%40sessionmgr14&hid=120[Accessed on 6th March 2013]
(Michael Sanderson, James Taggart, 1999), ACAS advice – a lost cause?, Employee Relations Volume: 21 Issue 2 Available from Emerald http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0142-5455&volume=21&issue=2&articleid=879686&show=html[Accessed on 5th March 2013] (Payne, Richard, 2008), CONDUCTING INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS), Personnel Today, 09595848 Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&sid=e36089c2-b721-420e-a929-720b38c8b9d8%40sessionmgr111&hid=1&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=31196126[Accessed on 4th March 2013] ( Saundry, Richard; Jones, Carol; Antcliff, Valerie, 2011), Discipline, representation and dispute resolution-exploring the role of trade unions and employee companions in workplace discipline, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 42 Issue 2, p195-211. 17p. 1 Chart. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2338.2010.00600.x. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=7dcdfb94-0b1f-4090-b398-d506f76e8c8c%40sessionmgr4&hid=120 [Accessed on 6th March 2013] (Susan Curtis, Dennis Wright, 2001), The role of ACAS, Management Research News Volume: 24 Issue: 1/2 2001 Available from Emerald http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0140-9174&volume=24&issue=1/2&articleid=866733&show=html[Accessed on 7th March 2013]
(Westall, Paula, 2009), Employment Act 2008. Available from Google Scholar http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/our_council/council/minutes,_agendas__reports/reports/scrutiny_cr/2009/09-06-02/employment_act_2008.aspx[Accessed on 6th March 2013]
The purpose of Acas (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) is to make better use of the better employment relations to upgrade the working life and the organization. Their motto is that prevention …show more content…
is always better than cure. As for their mission, it is to improve the organization’s performance and effectiveness through an independent and impartial service so that disputes within the organization can be resolved (source by ACAS Annual Report, 1996)(Michael Sanderson, James Taggart, 1999). They provide best practice just by giving simple advices and services to the members in the workplace. Besides that, advice and guidance are also provided to the Government and social partners.
Discipline is defined as the training of mind and character together to make obedience as a habit and self control. In general, it also refers as a punishment for the wrong doing (Hamsioglu & Didem Pasaoglu, 2011). When rules are been broken in the workplace or organization, punishment will be given to the people who violated the rules depending on the consequences of their actions (Cole, Nina D, 2008).
Disciplinary rules are required because in the organization, without rules the employees are free to do anything they want and when something happens they are able to get away with it. For example, the employees do not have to be worry about not completing their work and just thinking of earning a free salary by doing nothing. Therefore, it would be more likely to be like a zoo than a productive environment. It is so important that disciplinary rules exists as it is to let the employees know that there is an expected standard to achieve and to provide those managers with necessary authority. However, the procedures should include the principles of natural justice to make better employment relations. Natural justice is by means of treating the employees with fairness (McGuinness, Charles, 2011). The fairness is measured by few elements. Firstly, all matters shall be raised and deal with little or no delay. Each of the party shall act consistently and necessary investigations have to be carried out to bring about the relevant facts so that natural justice can be upheld (Payne, Richard, 2008). Employers shall notify the employees the basis of the problem and allowing them to put their case. Lastly, employees should be able to be accompanied during any formal disciplinary meeting or hearings (Hunt, Dennis, 2005).
An example of tribunal case ‘William Hicks & Partners v Nadal’, Nadal’s unfair dismissal claim was upheld by tribunal based on the basis that the employer did not treat her fairly before reaching the decision to dismiss and the employer appealed. The tribunal decision was then upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). They said that for a dismissal to be fair and in term of natural justice, Nadal as the employee should have be given a chance to tell their case (Eversheds, 2005)
There are few stages of disciplinary procedure as not all procedure is usable for all misconduct. The first stage is by giving written warning while the second stage is by giving final written warning. Last stage would be dismissal or other sanction. For minor problems, it will normally deal with informally such as advice, counseling and etc. In the first stage, it would either be verbal warning or written warning which is a legal requirement in UK. When the employee does not meet the expected standard, the company will usually give a verbal warning and advise them to correct the problems (Galashan, Susan, 2009). If the misconduct is more serious which eventually causes a loss or bad reputation to the company then a written warning will be given to the employee. The second stage occurs when the employee fail to improve upon the previous warning. A final written warning will be issued to the employee by the person at least one level above the immediate supervisor. A record will be kept by the company to keep a close eye on the employee as well. As for the last stage, dismissal will be imposed to the employee if they still choose to ignore the previous warnings. This formal procedure can only be taken action by the senior human resources or personnel manager in the department as they are the one responsible for the disciplinary issue ((Saundry, Richard; Jones, Carol; Antcliff, Valerie, 2011). The employee will be given a dismissal without notice if they commit serious offences such as fighting, theft and etc.
However, organizations normally use the mixture of punitive and corrective approaches. As said by Fenley, 1998 the punitive approach is distinguish through the basis of authoritarian and result in arbitrary treatment while the corrective approach is to encourage self-discipline. The punishment will be fair, consistent and predictable plus the term of natural justice will be bringing in as an important aspect. Corrective discipline is also a type of punishment that is in sophisticated form.
From 2004 to 2009, the Codes of Practice had been changed based on legislation.
In 2004, the statutory procedure has been introduced so that the employer has to follow in order to avoid automatic adverse tribunal rulings. The amount of single tribunal claims are proved that they declined from 65,364 to 52000 in the year 2004 to 2006 ((Antcliff, Valerie; Saundry, Richard, 2009). The parties that are involved in statutory procedure mostly failed. They drew the same conclusion that the statutory procedure seemed to be unsuccessful (Griffiths, Julie, 2007). The measures are also recommended to be much more simple and flexible and the statutory procedures have to be repealed and the 2004 code is deemed to be inflexible but it is perhaps a classic case of good policy (Gibbons, 2007). Due to the procedures, problems that can be solved informally have now forced to use the formal …show more content…
processes.
The purpose of the Acas 2004 is to provide an orderly employment relations and treating every member in the workplace with consistency and fairness while Acas 2009 is designed to help the members in the workplace to deal with situations regarding discipline. Consistency and fairness is important to the employees because without it, the organization is unable to gain commitment from them (Wilkinson, 1999). The disciplinary procedures in Acas 2004 encourage improvement towards employees that have a bad record or perform an unsatisfactory performance previously which is almost identical in Code of Practice 2000. It does not simply means by imposing a punishment to them to solve the problem. It has to depend on the performance issue in order to give detailed and separate advices. As for the Acas 2009, such views are not mentioned in it. There would not be a separate advice given on different performance issues as it applies the same to every problem according to the stage.
In the Acas Codes of Practice 2000/2004, the important transactions will be encouraged first and the first warning given in Acas 2000 is in two forms either in verbal or written form while in 2004 it will only be in written form.
It also indicates a specific length of time on how long the warning will last. For example, the first warning given to the employee will last for six months. The essential features of the procedures will be listed in a place together and the term of natural justice is not mentioned in the Codes. Besides that, it also focuses on the importance of the written records which states the record of the employees. In extra, the Codes lists out the cases of the gross misconduct for example cases like theft, fraud, drug taking and etc which are serious (Hunt, Dennis,
2005).
As for the Acas Codes of Practice 2009, the informal dealings will not be encouraged first and the first warning given will no more verbally. The first warning given will be written despite the type of misconduct. The warning given to the employee will not indicate to them on how long it will last. The essential features of the procedures will not be listed as well and there is not a specific mention regarding the natural justice term. The records of the employees past that are written are not given any special importance in it. The cases for gross misconduct indicated will not be listed as mentioned under the 2009 Code.
The Acas Code intends to help the employees and employers in the workplace to have a more flexible and simpler approach to handle disciplinary procedures but in the 2009 Code, it is said that the code gives less protection to the employees (Westall, Paula, 2009). This is because in the 2009 code, there are some disadvantages to the employees. As said in the 2009 Code, there will be no more verbally action against the employees that made any misconduct. This shows that there isn’t any chance given to them to improve themselves rather than just giving them a written warning. Due to this, it might cause them to be having hatred instead of regrets and might end up with a bigger problem. As said in the proverb, a quiet word is often all that is required to solve a problem. In this case, it is more simple and flexible to the employer but it does not benefit the employees because the term natural justice is not emphasised in the 2009 code.
In the 2000/2004 Code, it does not bring advantage to the employees as there is no natural justice in it. The employees are forced to obey and do everything said by the employer. They do not have the authority to reject as well. They might ended up disobey the rules one day and the company will impose a dismissal to the employee who refuses to obey the rules and regulations (Jenkins, Dela, 1996).
Besides that, when the employers gain more power to control the employees they might have more desire for flexibility and it automatically weakens the employees access for their fairness. Therefore, the employees and managers have to understand how they are to be used. It is a good practice to keep the written record so that the company could keep track on those employees that have a bad record as in the 2004 Code. However, in the 2004 Code it brings a disadvantage to the smaller employers. It is because when things can be solved easily but they choose to focus more on the procedure and written communication causes it to be counter-cultural and only lead the problem to become worst instead of solving it.
Conclusion, disciplinary rules are important to the employers in an organization as it helps them guide the employee to have a better behavior and enhance the performance of their work. Besides that, the rules have to be simple and easy to be understood and it is related to the objective of the organization. As for the ACAS 2004 and 2009, both of the Codes have their own advantages and disadvantages depending on which aspect. ACAS 2004 focus more on the term natural justice which provides fairness to the employee while the ACAS 2009 focus more on the procedures so that employers are able to gain more flexibility. In my opinion, it is hard to combine natural justice and flexibility for the sake of benefits towards the employee and employer together. However, in the future the ACAS might be developed to a stage that covers both natural justice and flexibility.
(1906 Words)
References
(Adrian Wilkinson, 1999), Employment relations in SMEs, Employee Relations Volume: 21 Issue: 3 Available from Emerald http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0142-5455&volume=21&issue=3&articleid=879689&show=html [Accessed on 3rd March 2013]
(Antcliff, Valerie; Saundry, Richard, 2009), Accompaniment, Workplace Representation and Disciplinary Outcomes in British Workplaces – Just a Formality?, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 47 Issue 1, p100-121. 22p. 5 Charts. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.2008.00709.x. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=16&sid=e374db7a-ea9c-4c91-a354-e9dd69c6a7ee%40sessionmgr14&hid=120[Accessed on 5th March 2013] (Cole, Nina D, 2008), The Effects of Differences in Explanations, Employee Attributions, Type of Infraction, and Discipline Severity on Perceived Fairness of Employee Discipline, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences (Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences), Vol. 25 Issue 2, p107-120. 14p. DOI: 10.1002/CJAS.57. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9454d825-abfe-416b-8833-bb1e4127c80f%40sessionmgr11&vid=2&hid=12 [Accessed on 5th March 2013] (Concannon, H.M.G, 1978), The growth of arbitration work in ACAS, Industrial Relations Journal. 1978), Vol. 9 Issue 1. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=843fef61-6b9f-4328-a93e-dfa2166e189e%40sessionmgr13&hid=27 [Accessed on 4th March 2013]
(Eversheds, 2005), CASE ROUND UP, Personnel Today, 09595848 Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=e33ea874-db7c-4e2f-acd1-3cd7e3cb5ce7%40sessionmgr14&vid=1&hid=1&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=19013760[Accessed on 4th March 2013] (Galashan, Susan, 2007), More questions answered on the new Acas code of practice, People Management, Vol. 15 Issue 16, p29-29. 2/3p. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=e374db7a-ea9c-4c91-a354-e9dd69c6a7ee%40sessionmgr14&hid=12[Accessed on 7th March 2013] (Griffiths, Julie, 2007). People Management, After the resolution, Vol. 13 Issue 8, p18-19. 2p. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=11&sid=ee1c88f8-e18a-4e8c-8541-ef1c4888c3c7%40sessionmgr13&hid=22 [Accessed on 4th March 2013]
(Gibbons, 2007), Better Dispute Resolution, A Review of Employment Dispute Resolution in Great Britain. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f7994ce5-0253-4eef-a2ee-c7a19fa41451%40sessionmgr11&vid=5&hid=12 [Accessed on 4th March 2013]
(Hamsioglu, Didem Pasaoglu, 2011), Global Conference on Business & Finance Proceedings, Vol. 6 Issue 2, p556-567. 12p. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=7dcdfb94-0b1f-4090-b398-d506f76e8c8c%40sessionmgr4&hid=120 [Accessed on 4th March 2013]
(Hunt, Dennis, 2005), Chapter 5:Disciplinary procedures step-by-step, Dismissal & Grievance Procedures, p44-56. 13p. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&sid=e374db7a-ea9c-4c91-a354-e9dd69c6a7ee%40sessionmgr14&hid=12[Accessed on 4th March 2013] (Hunt, Dennis, 2005), Chapter 3: Disciplinary rules, Dismissal & Grievance Procedures,p26-31. 6p. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=e374db7a-ea9c-4c91-a354-e9dd69c6a7ee%40sessionmgr14&hid=12[Accessed on 2nd March 2013]
(Jenkins, Dela, 1996), Building Positive Relations at Work. Select Knowledge Limited Available from Google Scholar http://books.google.com.my/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5pnUGan6cfoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=acas+employee+obey&ots=Qe_T-_Agu5&sig=jZdpRQSlO5AM9nyUfBI8QvZmmvU#v=onepage&q=acas%20employee%20obey&f=false[Accessed on 8th March 2013] (McGuinness, Charles, 2011),new employment law – the difference between would and could, Human Resources Magazine, Vol. 16 Issue 3, p24-25. 2p. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&sid=e374db7a-ea9c-4c91-a354-e9dd69c6a7ee%40sessionmgr14&hid=120[Accessed on 6th March 2013]
(Michael Sanderson, James Taggart, 1999), ACAS advice – a lost cause?, Employee Relations Volume: 21 Issue 2 Available from Emerald http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0142-5455&volume=21&issue=2&articleid=879686&show=html[Accessed on 5th March 2013] (Payne, Richard, 2008), CONDUCTING INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS), Personnel Today, 09595848 Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&sid=e36089c2-b721-420e-a929-720b38c8b9d8%40sessionmgr111&hid=1&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=31196126[Accessed on 4th March 2013] ( Saundry, Richard; Jones, Carol; Antcliff, Valerie, 2011), Discipline, representation and dispute resolution-exploring the role of trade unions and employee companions in workplace discipline, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 42 Issue 2, p195-211. 17p. 1 Chart. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2338.2010.00600.x. Available from EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=7dcdfb94-0b1f-4090-b398-d506f76e8c8c%40sessionmgr4&hid=120 [Accessed on 6th March 2013] (Susan Curtis, Dennis Wright, 2001), The role of ACAS, Management Research News Volume: 24 Issue: 1/2 2001 Available from Emerald http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0140-9174&volume=24&issue=1/2&articleid=866733&show=html[Accessed on 7th March 2013]
(Westall, Paula, 2009), Employment Act 2008. Available from Google Scholar http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/our_council/council/minutes,_agendas__reports/reports/scrutiny_cr/2009/09-06-02/employment_act_2008.aspx[Accessed on 6th March 2013]