Is the right to be accompanied automatic? Lessons from Wolfe v Taka Mayfair

Employment Appeal Tribunal decision: 2026

The right to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing is a well-established protection under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. However, a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision confirms that this right is not automatic. The worker must first make a reasonable request to be accompanied before the employer’s legal duty arises. If no request is made, the employer will not breach section 10, even where the worker was not told beforehand about the nature of the meeting or their right to be accompanied.

Background: A meeting without warning

Mr Wolfe,a head sommelier and restaurant manager, said he was unexpectedly called into a meeting at the end of a shift without being told its purpose or that disciplinary action was being considered. By the end of the meeting, he had been dismissed.

Mr Wolfe sought permission to amend his existing Employment Tribunal claim to add a complaint that the employer had breached his statutory right to be accompanied. He said that he had not asked for a companion because he did not realise the meeting could result in dismissal until it was too late.

The Employment Tribunal refused the application to amend because, even taking Mr Wolfe’s case at its highest, the proposed section 10 claim was bound to fail.

The EAT’s Decision

The EAT dismissed Mr Wolfe’s appeal. It held that the statutory wording is clear:

• The right to be accompanied arises only where the worker makes a reasonable request to be accompanied.
• If no request is made, the employer’s duties under section 10 are not triggered.

Section 10 does not require employers to:
• explain the purpose or nature of a meeting;
• warn that dismissal is a possible outcome; or
• inform the worker of their right to be accompanied.

The EAT emphasised that any perceived gap in the statutory protection is a matter for Parliament, not the courts.

Importantly, the EAT noted, that a request made during a meeting, once its true nature becomes clear, might be sufficient. But in this case, no request was made at any stage.

Implications for employers

The EAT’s decision does not remove the need for employers to follow a fair procedure.

Failing to explain the purpose of a meeting or inform the worker of their right to be accompanied will not breach section 10 if the worker did not request a companion. However, those failures may still be relevant when determining whether a dismissal was fair.

Compensation for a successful complaint that an employer failed to comply with section 10 is capped at two weeks’ pay. By contrast, the consequences of failing to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice may be significantly greater.

The Code provides that, where there is a disciplinary case to answer, the employee should be notified in writing of the alleged misconduct or poor performance and its possible consequences. The notification should also provide details of the disciplinary meeting and advise the employee of their right to be accompanied.

Employment Tribunals are required to take relevant provisions of the ACAS Code into account when deciding issues such as whether a dismissal was fair. Further, where an employee succeeds in a claim to which the Code applies, an unreasonable failure by the employer to comply with it may result in any compensation awarded being increased by up to 25%.

Employers should therefore not interpret the decision as meaning that they can stop informing workers of their right to be accompanied. They should continue to follow the ACAS Code where it applies and carry out a fair procedure.