The Employment Tribunal Deadline Is Doubling—Are Your Records Ready?
- Language Support
- 27 minutes ago
- 11 min read
Why every employer should review workplace documentation before 1 October 2026
Imagine receiving an Employment Tribunal claim six months after a workplace decision.
The manager who handled the situation has left.
Meeting notes cannot be found.
Important conversations happened verbally.
The employee’s explanation was never properly recorded.
The final email simply says:
“As discussed, we have decided…”
But what was discussed?
What evidence was considered?
What support was offered?
Was the employee given a genuine opportunity to respond?
Why was that particular decision reached?
Nobody can now remember clearly—and the organisation’s records do not provide the answer.
A decision may have been reasonable. The manager may have acted with good intentions. The employee may have been treated fairly.
But if the evidence has disappeared, demonstrating that months later can become extremely difficult.
That risk is about to remain open for considerably longer.
A significant deadline change is coming
From 1 October 2026, the time limit for bringing most Employment Tribunal claims will increase from three months to six months.
The change forms part of the Employment Rights Act 2025. The government’s updated implementation timetable confirms the October date, with the equivalent extension for breach-of-contract claims in Scotland taking effect on 9 November 2026.
The longer period will affect many common types of workplace claim, including claims relating to:
Unfair dismissal
Discrimination
Unlawful deductions from wages
Whistleblowing detriment
Working-time rights
Part-time and fixed-term worker protections
Certain contractual disputes
Some information, consultation and trade-union rights
The detailed provisions are spread across the Act and supporting legislation, including the Employment Tribunal Extension of Time Limits Regulations 2026.
For most claims, the six-month period will generally apply where the relevant act, failure to act—or the final event in an alleged series—takes place on or after 1 October 2026.
Events occurring wholly before that date will normally remain subject to the existing time limit.
This transitional distinction matters. Employers should not assume that every workplace dispute automatically moves to six months on 1 October.
Six months may not be the complete timeline
The headline says “six months”, but the practical risk period may feel longer.
Before presenting most tribunal claims, an individual must normally notify Acas.
Early Conciliation can last for up to 12 weeks, and the rules affecting the final deadline can become complicated.
An internal grievance, disciplinary process or appeal does not normally pause the time limit for notifying Acas. An employee may therefore begin Early Conciliation while an internal procedure is still continuing.
There are also specialist exceptions and shorter deadlines. For example, certain applications for interim relief can carry a deadline of only seven days.
Employers should therefore avoid treating six months as a universal calculation or a safe records-destruction date. Exact deadlines depend on the type of claim, the relevant event and the individual circumstances.
The Acas guidance on tribunal time limits and Early Conciliation process provide useful starting points, but legal advice may be necessary in an active dispute.
Why this matters to employers
The longer deadline does not automatically mean that more employers will lose tribunal cases.
However, it creates more time for:
An employee to obtain advice
An internal complaint to develop
Additional events to become connected to the original concern
A manager or witness to leave the organisation
Emails, messages or CCTV to be deleted
Memories to become less reliable
Informal assurances to be remembered differently
Weak documentation to become a serious evidential problem
The government’s explanatory material estimated that the reform could contribute to approximately a 5% increase in Employment Tribunal claims. It also recognised that small and microbusinesses may face disproportionate challenges because they have fewer internal HR and legal resources.
For a small employer, even a claim that is successfully defended can require substantial management time, document searches, witness preparation and professional advice.
Preparation is therefore not simply about avoiding liability.
It is about ensuring that the organisation can explain what happened without attempting to reconstruct the complete story months later.
Good documentation does not make a poor decision fair
A well-written outcome letter cannot rescue:
A biased investigation
A predetermined decision
A failure to hear the employee’s response
Inconsistent treatment
Ignored medical information
A refusal to consider reasonable adjustments
A process that conflicts with the organisation’s own policy
A decision made without sufficient evidence
Documentation is not a substitute for fairness.
It should be the reliable record of a fair process.
The purpose is not to manufacture a defence after the event. It is to demonstrate the reasoning, evidence, consultation and consideration that genuinely took place.
Good records may also expose mistakes early enough to correct them through an appeal, further investigation or informal resolution—before the problem reaches a tribunal.
What should a defensible decision record show?
For an important workplace decision, the file should allow an independent person to understand the complete process.
It should normally answer the following questions.
1. What happened?
Create a clear chronology containing relevant dates, events and people.
Separate facts from allegations and assumptions.
“Employee was uncooperative” is a conclusion.
“Employee did not attend meetings scheduled for 4 and 11 June; the explanations provided were…” is a record that can be assessed.
2. What concern was raised?
Record the specific conduct, performance issue, complaint, absence concern, business reason or proposed change.
Avoid vague descriptions such as:
Poor attitude
Not a good fit
Difficult personality
Communication issues
Lack of commitment
If the concern cannot be explained clearly, the employee cannot respond to it properly—and a later decision-maker cannot assess it fairly.
3. What evidence was considered?
The record might include:
Emails and correspondence
Attendance or performance information
Relevant policies
Witness statements
Meeting notes
Training records
Previous objectives or warnings
Customer complaints
Work records
Occupational-health advice
Comparable previous cases
The person investigating should record how evidence was obtained and why it was relevant. Acas provides useful workplace investigation guidance and templates.
Evidence supporting the employee’s position should not be ignored simply because it complicates the decision.
4. What was the employee told?
The employee should understand:
The nature of the concern
The possible consequences
The evidence being considered
The applicable process
Their opportunity to respond
Any right to be accompanied
Any next steps and timescales
An invitation stating only “meeting to discuss recent concerns” may be inadequate when serious formal action is being considered.
5. What did the employee say?
This is one of the most commonly missing parts of a workplace record.
The notes should capture:
The employee’s explanation
Any disagreement about the facts
Mitigating circumstances
Evidence provided by the employee
Health or disability information raised
Complaints about consistency or unfair treatment
Requests for support or adjustments
Points requiring further investigation
A record containing only the manager’s questions and final conclusion does not show that the employee’s response was properly considered.
Where appropriate, provide meeting notes to the employee and ask them to confirm their accuracy or identify any disagreement. Acas recommends giving witnesses an opportunity to review and sign investigation notes.
6. Was support considered?
Depending on the circumstances, the employer may need to consider:
Additional training
Clearer objectives
Management support
Changes to workload
More time to improve
Occupational-health advice
Reasonable adjustments
Alternative duties
Mediation
An informal resolution
A phased return to work
The record should explain what support was considered, what was offered and why any suggested option was not considered appropriate.
7. Was the decision consistent?
Consistency does not mean every employee must receive an identical outcome.
Different circumstances may justify different decisions.
However, the employer should be able to explain why similar cases were treated similarly—or why a different outcome was reasonable.
This is particularly important where an employee alleges favouritism, discrimination, retaliation or inconsistent management.
8. Which policy or procedure was followed?
Keep the relevant policy version with the case file.
Policies change. A document downloaded several months later may not be the version that applied when the decision was made.
The record should identify:
The procedure used
The stage reached
Any authorised departure from the procedure
The reason for that departure
Who had authority to make the final decision
9. Why was the outcome considered reasonable?
A useful decision note should explain:
Findings on each important allegation or issue
Evidence accepted or rejected
Any conflicting evidence
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances
Alternatives considered
The reason for the selected outcome
How proportionality and consistency were assessed
“As discussed, we have decided to terminate your employment” is not a meaningful explanation.
The word because is often the most important word in an outcome letter.
10. Was an appeal offered and recorded?
Where an appeal is applicable, the outcome should explain:
The right to appeal
How to appeal
The relevant deadline
Who will hear it
Whether the appeal will review the decision or reconsider the case
Keep the appeal request, appeal notes, additional evidence and final decision with the original file.
Where possible, an appeal should be handled impartially by somebody not previously involved.
The Acas Code still matters
The Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures establishes important principles of workplace fairness.
These include:
Acting promptly
Investigating the facts
Explaining the concern
Allowing the employee to respond
Acting consistently
Allowing accompaniment at formal meetings
Providing an appeal
Employment tribunals can take the Code into account in relevant cases. An unreasonable failure to follow it may result in an adjustment to an award of up to 25%.
The Code also advises employers to keep written records of disciplinary and grievance cases.
Small employers are not expected to have the resources of a multinational HR department. The size and resources of an organisation can be relevant.
But “we are only a small business” does not remove the need for a reasonable, fair and understandable process.
Ten documentation failures that create unnecessary risk
1. The “as discussed” outcome
The final decision refers to a conversation but does not record its content, evidence or reasoning.
2. Retrospective notes
A manager writes an account several weeks or months later and presents it as though it were made at the time.
If a note is created retrospectively, label it honestly and record when and why it was prepared.
3. Decisions hidden in personal inboxes
Important evidence remains in a former manager’s email account, private notebook, mobile telephone or messaging application.
4. Conclusions without examples
The employee is accused of poor performance, misconduct or attitude problems without dates, incidents or measurable expectations.
5. The employee’s response disappears
The file contains the allegation and the outcome but not the employee’s explanation.
6. Adjustments are mentioned but not considered
The employee raises a health condition or disability, but the record does not show what the employer considered or why a request was accepted or refused.
7. Managers decide first and document later
Internal messages reveal that the outcome was predetermined before the employee had an opportunity to respond.
8. Different records tell different stories
The manager’s notes, HR file, outcome letter and payroll instruction contain conflicting dates or reasons.
9. Excessive or careless commentary
Emails include jokes, assumptions, frustration or personal criticism unrelated to the decision.
Workers may have the right to request copies of personal information held about them, including relevant HR records and emails. The ICO’s guidance for employers on subject access requests is worth reading before somebody asks to see “everything you hold about me”.
10. Records are deleted without a retention framework
Evidence disappears because nobody knows what should be retained, where it should be stored or who is responsible.
Six months is not a blanket retention period
The new tribunal deadline does not mean employers should simply keep every HR record for six months and then delete it.
Nor does it justify keeping every message, document and piece of personal information forever.
Under data-protection principles, personal information should be:
Collected for a clear purpose
Adequate and relevant
Accurate
Secure
Accessible only to authorised people
Retained for no longer than necessary
The UK GDPR does not establish one universal retention period for every type of employment record.
Employers should create a documented retention schedule based on:
The purpose of each record
Relevant statutory requirements
Potential legal claims
Contractual obligations
Regulatory requirements
Acas Early Conciliation
Ongoing grievances, appeals or litigation
The sensitivity of the information
The organisation’s ability to justify continued retention
The ICO’s guidance on keeping employment records and storage limitation explains why organisations should establish and regularly review retention schedules.
If a dispute, grievance, Acas notification or claim is anticipated, relevant information should not be destroyed through routine deletion.
Which workplace decisions deserve a formal decision file?
Not every conversation requires a twelve-page report.
However, employers should recognise when an informal matter has become a decision with potential legal, financial or personal consequences.
Examples include:
Disciplinary action
Grievances
Dismissal
Redundancy selection
Performance-management decisions
Probation extensions or termination
Long-term absence management
Requests for reasonable adjustments
Flexible-working decisions
Pay changes or deductions
Changes to hours, duties or location
Promotion decisions
Harassment or discrimination complaints
Whistleblowing concerns
Suspension
Refusal of leave or family-related rights
Changes to employment status
Settlement discussions
Appeals against formal decisions
A practical rule is:
If the decision could materially affect somebody’s pay, job security, health, reputation, rights or career, create a proper written record.
A simple decision-record template for small employers
A small business does not necessarily need expensive HR software.
A consistent template and secure central folder can already create a significant improvement.
For each important decision, record:
Employee and case details
Issue and relevant dates
Applicable policy
People involved and their roles
Evidence collected
Meeting dates and attendees
Employee’s response
Further investigation completed
Support or adjustments considered
Alternative outcomes considered
Decision and reasons
Who authorised the decision
Date the outcome was communicated
Appeal arrangements
Retention and review date
Every document should have:
A clear title
Creation date
Author
Version
Confidentiality classification
Secure storage location
The six-month records-readiness audit
Before October, employers should test a sample of recent workplace cases.
Select at least one recent:
Absence case
Performance concern
Grievance
Disciplinary matter
Probation decision
Flexible-working or adjustment request
Then ask:
Can we locate the complete file quickly?
Is there a reliable chronology?
Are the relevant policy and evidence included?
Can we see what the employee was told?
Is the employee’s response recorded?
Are meeting notes dated and attributed?
Does the file show what support or adjustments were considered?
Can an independent person understand why the decision was made?
Is the appeal process documented?
Would the organisation be comfortable disclosing the records to the employee or a tribunal?
If several answers are “no”, the problem is not merely administrative.
It is a business risk.
A practical 30-day preparation plan
Week 1: Find the gaps
List all existing HR policies and templates
Identify where employee records are stored
Check who has access
Review recent cases for missing documents
Identify information held in personal inboxes or notebooks
Confirm whether former employees’ files can still be located
Week 2: Standardise the process
Create or update templates for:
Investigation plans
Meeting invitations
Meeting notes
Witness statements
Performance-improvement plans
Outcome letters
Decision-rationale records
Appeals
Reasonable-adjustment discussions
Week 3: Train managers
Managers should understand:
When an informal conversation becomes a formal process
What must be recorded
How to separate fact from opinion
How to write professional notes
When to contact HR or obtain legal advice
How to preserve relevant evidence
Why the employee’s response matters
Why “as discussed” is not a complete record
Week 4: Test the system
Run a simulated records request:
“Please provide the complete file explaining why this employee received a final warning six months ago.”
Can the organisation produce a clear, complete and consistent file without relying on the memory of one manager?
If not, the system is not ready.
Documentation should support resolution—not hostility
Better records should not make workplaces colder or more bureaucratic.
They should make decisions clearer.
A good follow-up email can prevent disagreement about what was promised.
Accurate meeting notes can help an employee correct a misunderstanding.
A written improvement plan can clarify expectations.
A properly reasoned outcome can help somebody understand a difficult decision—even when they disagree with it.
Clear records can support early resolution because both sides have a more reliable understanding of what happened.
The objective is not to prepare for war every time somebody enters a meeting room.
It is to avoid attempting to reconstruct the battle six months later from three emails and somebody’s fading memory.
The question every employer should ask
From October, employees will have more time to consider many Employment Tribunal claims.
Employers should use the remaining preparation time wisely.
Review your policies.
Train your managers.
Improve your templates.
Centralise important records.
Create a retention schedule.
And require every significant decision to contain a clear explanation of:
What happened, what was considered, what the employee said and why the final outcome was reached.
Good documentation is not unnecessary bureaucracy.
It is the organisation’s memory when the people involved can no longer remember—or no longer work there.
If a workplace decision made today were challenged six months later, would your records tell the complete story?
How Language Support can help
Language Support provides practical support to small businesses and growing employers with:
HR documentation
Employee-record audits
Workplace policies and procedures
Performance and probation documentation
Disciplinary and grievance processes
Manager communication
Bilingual Polish–English workplace support
Practical HR systems for growing teams
📞 +44 7703 779309
✒️ Subscribe to HR & Business Growth Insights for practical guidance covering HR, people management, recruitment, workplace communication and sustainable business growth:
This article provides general information, not legal advice. Employment Tribunal deadlines and transitional rules depend on the type of claim, the relevant dates and the specific circumstances. The legal position and implementation timetable were checked on 4 August 2026.
Comments