Artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly common in the workplace, from drafting emails and reports to helping employees prepare formal grievances. But what happens when AI starts to get in the way of effective workplace communication?
A recent ruling by Australia’s Fair Work Commission has raised an interesting question: could UK tribunals take a similar approach when AI is being used in workplace disputes?
When AI gets in the way of a genuine grievance
The Australian case involved an employee who used AI to help write correspondence relating to a workplace grievance.
While the employee had a genuine claim of bullying, the AI-generated correspondence became lengthy, repetitive, aggressive and vague. The volume and style of the communication eventually became so difficult to manage that the employer stopped responding.
The Commission described this outcome as “unsurprising”, recognising that it would be unreasonable to expect someone to work through large amounts of dense, computer-generated text.
The concern wasn’t simply that AI had been used. Rather, the way it was being used had made it harder to understand and address the underlying issues.
In this case, the employee’s reliance on AI ultimately risked obscuring the facts of a potentially legitimate grievance.
Could something similar happen in the UK?
The case provides an interesting comparison for UK employers, particularly given the importance placed on fair and reasonable grievance and disciplinary procedures.
Under UK employment law, employers are expected to handle workplace grievances fairly and thoroughly, with the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures providing an important framework for doing so.
This creates an interesting tension.
An employee may use AI to help organise their thoughts or draft a grievance, but if the resulting document is excessively long, unclear or difficult to follow, it could make it harder for an employer to understand the actual complaint.
However, employers cannot simply dismiss a grievance because it has been poorly presented or appears to have been generated using AI. The underlying concerns still need to be properly understood and investigated.
What does this mean for employers?
The Australian ruling is a useful reminder that AI should support workplace communication, rather than replace it.
Employers may want to consider how their policies address the use of AI, particularly where it is being used to draft:
- Grievances and complaints
- Disciplinary responses
- Employment correspondence
- Witness statements
- Appeals and other formal workplace documents
Clear guidance can help employees understand that while AI may be useful for structuring or proofreading information, it should not distort the facts or replace their own account of events.
At the same time, managers and HR teams should be cautious about making assumptions simply because a document appears to have been AI-generated. The focus should remain on the substance of the complaint and ensuring that the appropriate process is followed.
Keeping the human element
The Australian case ultimately resulted in both parties being ordered to stop using AI and communicate directly, briefly and politely.
While this is not a UK ruling, it raises an important question for employers here: how far should AI be allowed to influence formal workplace processes?
AI can be a valuable workplace tool, but when dealing with sensitive issues such as grievances, disciplinary matters and workplace disputes, human judgement and communication remain essential.
For employees, the lesson is to make sure AI doesn’t obscure the facts or weaken a genuine claim.
For employers, the message is equally important: however a grievance is presented, the underlying concerns still deserve proper consideration and investigation.
As AI becomes increasingly embedded in the workplace, employers may need to think carefully about where it can add value, and where human communication should remain at the centre of the process.
