1.0 IntroductionThe business environment today has witnessed diversified growth from time to time, especially due to the impacts of globalization. This type of environment included not only the private sector, but also the public sector, requiring human resource management (“HRM”) as part of the management tool to allocate, control and manage hand -work within work processes. Thus, with the aim of guiding the work forces, certain norms of the legal regime and statutory procedures have been established to deal with these issues, although they have changed due to the chronological order. Managers had to raise awareness without hesitation about this constantly evolving area of ​​HRM. beyond the scope of current labor legislation and procedures. They must adapt to the changes associated with this development and resolve grievances and disciplinary issues with the appropriate sources. Thus, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service ('ACAS') Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance Procedures was undoubtedly established in 1975, as an independent body charged with resolving disagreements of the parties concerned with the integration of professional organizations, in collaboration with national legislation within the framework of a conciliation consultation (ACAS, 2010a; 2010b). However, changes to these codes have significantly affected this environment. Thus, the main objective of this assignment is to examine whether the standards of the 2008 ACAS Code represent a significant deterioration compared to the 2003 Code, drawing on relevant sources in the explanation as well.2.0 The Code of ACASE Best PracticesIn general, grievance and disciplinary matters have always occurred in a workplace, between employees, employers and their representatives. As a suitable manual for reducing middle of paper...... graphics, the Code of 2008 was developed to encourage the resolution of industrial disputes at the workplace, with the aim of reducing recourse to the courts . Also. However, employers had difficulty indicating the reasonableness of the 2008 version, due to ambiguous paragraphs. Although the cases, particularly that of dismissal, are important, this Code has led the court to rule on the reasonableness of fair dismissal. In another explanation, the judgment depends on how the court handled it. Therefore, employers might find it difficult to identify with reasonable reasons for dismissal at present, they can only rely on the court's judgment. Finally, the 2008 Code may be worse than the previous Code, but the latter code brings significant positive impacts on the system. the parties too, likewise, depending on the situation and the changes to come.