The right to be accompanied: when process, discretion and humanity collide

Few workplace meetings feel more exposed than a disciplinary hearing. For the employer, it is a process to establish facts, consider evidence and reach a fair outcome. For the employee, it can feel intensely personal: their reputation, livelihood and future may all seem to be at stake.

That is why the right to be accompanied matters. It is not simply a procedural footnote. It can support fairness, reduce anxiety and help everyone participate more effectively. However, where requests are dismissed without proper consideration, it can undermine confidence in the process and, in the most serious cases, expose a much deeper failure to recognise the human impact of workplace processes.

The statutory position

Under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, a worker who is required or invited to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing may make a reasonable request to be accompanied. The companion must be one of three categories: a work colleague, a certified workplace trade union representative, or an official employed by a trade union.

The companion can address the hearing, put or sum up the worker’s case, respond on the worker’s behalf to views expressed in the meeting, and confer with the worker. They cannot, however, answer questions instead of the worker or prevent the employer from explaining its case.

ACAS guidance also makes clear that employees should be told about the right to be accompanied in advance of a disciplinary hearing, alongside the allegations, evidence, possible outcomes and meeting details.

The difficult middle ground: friends and family members

A friend or family member does not usually fall within the statutory categories. That means an employer may be entitled, as a matter of strict law, to refuse such a request unless there is a contractual right, policy wording or a legal obligation such as a reasonable adjustment for disability.

But legal entitlement is only part of the picture. Employers should pause before saying “no”. Why has the request been made? Is the employee particularly vulnerable? Are there health, disability, neurodiversity, language, trauma or wellbeing considerations? Would a trusted supporter help the employee understand the process and participate properly?

Recent reporting of the inquest into the death of Chloe Moffat following a workplace disciplinary process has served as a reminder of the very real human impact that workplace processes can have. The inquest heard that she was not allowed to have a third party of her choice in a meeting, was left distressed and isolated, and died the following day. Whatever the legal classification of any individual meeting, the wider lesson for employers is uncomfortable but important: process must be fair, but it must also be humane.

The other extreme: “I want to bring my solicitor”

A different issue arises when the employee wants to bring a solicitor. In most ordinary disciplinary hearings, there is no automatic statutory right to legal representation. That is an important distinction for employers, particularly where the process is internal and the potential outcome is disciplinary action within the employment relationship.

However, employers should still consider the context. There may be exceptional circumstances where legal representation, or some other form of additional support, is appropriate, for example, where the outcome could have serious professional or regulatory consequences, where the employer’s own policy allows it, or where refusal could create fairness or discrimination risks.

Practical lessons for employers

• Start with the statutory right. Make sure disciplinary and grievance invitations clearly explain the right to be accompanied and who qualifies as a companion.
• Do not apply a rigid “computer says no” approach. If an employee asks for a friend, family member or other supporter, ask why before refusing.
• Consider reasonable adjustments. A companion outside the statutory categories may be appropriate where disability, health or communication needs are in play.
• Assess vulnerability and wellbeing. Serious allegations, suspension, isolation, distress or fear of dismissal should trigger careful handling and clear communication.
• Be clear about outcomes. If dismissal is not a likely or available outcome at that stage, say so. Ambiguity can cause unnecessary alarm.
• Record the decision-making. If a request is refused, document the reasons and any alternative support offered.
• Keep control of the hearing. Allowing support does not mean surrendering management of the meeting. Ground rules can be set so the hearing remains orderly and fair.

When discretion matters

The right to be accompanied is often treated as a narrow procedural issue. In reality, it is much more than that. It raises wider questions about fairness, communication and employee wellbeing.

The challenge for employers is to hold the line where appropriate, while recognising when discretion is not just kind but sensible risk management. A colleague or union representative may be the legal baseline. But in the right case, allowing a trusted supporter can be the difference between a process that is technically compliant and one that is genuinely fair.

Nina Seymour is Head of Invicta Law’s Employment, Pensions and Education Group. She is an experienced employment solicitor with a long career supporting local authorities and senior officers.