Australia has just banned an employee from using AI. Last week, the Australian Fair Work Commission ordered a worker pursuing a genuine workplace bullying complaint, not to use AI to prepare future correspondence with her employer. The Commission found that her communications appeared to have been AI-generated and had become lengthy, repetitive, accusatory and difficult to engage with. As a result, the employer had largely stopped responding, despite there being a legitimate underlying complaint that warranted attention. The Commission even commented that they found it “unsurprising” that the employer had stopped responding.
One of the most striking aspects of the case is that the employee’s concerns were not dismissed as unmeritorious. The Commission found evidence supporting aspects of her complaint, including allegations that defamatory emails had been circulated about her and that inappropriate records had been kept concerning her appearance.
The difficulty arose because the way the concerns were communicated concealed the substance of the issues. Ultimately, her complaint became counterproductive due to the sheer volume of information and tone of her own AI generated correspondence. The lesson is clear, even where an employee has a legitimate grievance or claim, relying on AI can risk diluting the key issues and make constructive resolution more difficult.
Could UK tribunals take a similar approach?
The decision comes at a time when UK employers are increasingly encountering AI-assisted grievances, appeal letters and disciplinary responses that are unnecessarily and excessively long. While UK Employment Tribunals have not, to date, prohibited parties from using AI in the way seen in Australia, concerns about AI-generated documents are not new. The issue is not necessarily the use of AI itself, but the tendency for some AI-generated content to be overly verbose, repetitive and lacking focus. Such lengthy submissions may appear impressive at first glance but contain relatively few clearly identifiable concerns requiring investigation or response.
In fact, the UK is starting to criticise the use of AI-generated documents, as Employment Judge Annand when reconsidering her judgment in CX v Secretary of State for Justice said:
“The documents sent in by the Claimant appear to have been written using AI. This appears to be the case because the documents are long, use language that is difficult to understand in places, and are highly repetitive. While it can be tempting for parties to use AI when submitting documents to Tribunals, it is easier for the Tribunal to understand the points that the parties want to make if they write them out themselves, in a single document, using their own words.”
What does this mean for employers?
Employers should resist the temptation to dismiss an AI-generated grievance simply because it is lengthy, difficult to follow or appears generic. Ultimately, the employee’s underlying concerns remained valid.
Instead, employers should focus on identifying the core issues hidden within the document. Practical steps may include:
- Separating factual allegations from commentary and legal assertions.
- Producing a list of key issues requiring investigation.
- Asking the employee to confirm or prioritise the concerns they want addressed.
- Maintaining clear and professional communication throughout the process.
In many cases, a concise clarification meeting to discuss a lengthy AI-generated document may be more effective than exchanging multiple rounds of correspondence in an attempt to identify and understand the key issues being raised.
A warning for employees too
Employees should also take note of this decision. AI can be a useful drafting tool, particularly for individuals who struggle to articulate concerns or who want assistance structuring a document. However, the technology should assist communication rather than replace critical thinking.
Before submitting any grievance or complaint, employees should ensure that:
- The contents accurately reflect their own experiences.
- The key issues are clearly identified.
- The document is concise and focused.
- Allegations are supported by facts wherever possible.
- The tone remains professional and constructive.
The strongest workplace complaints are often the clearest and most focused, not the longest.
The bigger picture
The Australian Commission’s decision and Employment Judge Annand’s comment serves as an early reminder that in workplace disputes, effective communication remains more important than ever. AI can help people communicate, but it can also amplify poor communication. Where grievances become longer, broader and more accusatory without adding substance, the risk is that the real issues become obscured.