Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly become part of everyday working life. Whether employees are using ChatGPT to draft emails, employers are introducing AI-powered workplace tools, or managers are relying on AI to improve productivity, its influence on the employment relationship is growing.
One area where this is becoming increasingly apparent is within disciplinary and grievance processes.
It is now common to receive grievances, disciplinary responses and appeal letters that have clearly been generated, or heavily assisted, by AI. Whilst AI can undoubtedly help employees articulate their concerns more clearly, it also presents several practical and legal challenges for employers.
The reality is that AI-generated submissions are here to stay. The key question for HR professionals and business owners is not whether employees should use AI, but how organisations should respond effectively when they do.
The challenges
Length over clarity
One of the most obvious features of AI-generated grievances is their length.
Rather than setting out the key issues succinctly, AI often produces documents that are repetitive, overly detailed and lacking a clear structure. What could have been a straightforward complaint quickly becomes several pages of information, making it much harder (and more time-consuming!) to identify the real issues that require investigation.
Legal language without accuracy
AI also tends to produce documents that sound highly legalistic.
Instead of simply explaining the facts, grievances often contain references to statutory provisions, legal terminology and Employment Tribunal case law. Unfortunately, public AI tools are well known for occasionally inventing cases or misapplying genuine legal authorities. This can make documents appear more persuasive than they actually are and distract attention from the factual issues that genuinely need to be addressed.
Escalated allegations
AI is designed to generate persuasive writing and, in doing so, can unintentionally exaggerate concerns.
A workplace disagreement can suddenly be described using terminology such as “harassment”, “victimisation”, or “systemic discrimination” where the employee may simply be trying to explain that relationships have broken down. Whilst every allegation must be considered, employers should concentrate on establishing the facts rather than becoming distracted by dramatic or emotive language.
Unrealistic expectations
Anyone who has used AI will probably have noticed that it tends to reinforce the user’s position.
If an employee asks whether their grievance is likely to succeed or whether they have a strong tribunal claim, AI frequently provides an optimistic assessment. This can create unrealistic expectations before the employer has even started investigating the issues, making it more difficult to manage the process and achieve an acceptable outcome.
Data protection risks
The biggest concern is one that often goes unnoticed.
Employees using public AI platforms may upload confidential company information or personal data relating to colleagues to obtain assistance with drafting their grievance or disciplinary response. That creates obvious confidentiality and data protection risks which employers should not overlook (see UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018).
5 top tips for dealing with AI-generated grievances and disciplinary responses
- Focus on prevention
Formal grievances are expensive, time-consuming and often damage working relationships.
The best approach is to encourage informal resolution wherever appropriate. Grievance policies should actively signpost employees towards discussing concerns informally with their manager/an appropriate manager or HR before commencing formal procedures.
Managers should also be trained and empowered to deal with workplace concerns at an early stage rather than feeling that every issue automatically requires a formal process.
- Don’t respond line by line
When faced with a lengthy AI-generated grievance or disciplinary response, it is tempting to answer every single point in writing. In practice, this often creates more work than it solves.
Detailed written responses can legitimise irrelevant arguments and often result in another equally lengthy AI-generated reply. Instead, focus on identifying the central issues that require investigation and ensure those are addressed thoroughly.
- Prioritise conversations over correspondence
One of the most effective ways to deal with AI-generated documents is to talk to the employee.
Whether in person or remotely, asking employees to explain their concerns in their own words often cuts through pages of unnecessary text and helps identify what the dispute is really about.
If their explanation differs from the written grievance or disciplinary response, clarify the position during the meeting by referring back to the document. This ensures that important issues are not missed whilst avoiding arguments later that particular points were ignored.
The same principle applies throughout the process. Where clarification is needed, a short conversation is often far more productive than an email exchange that generates increasingly lengthy AI-assisted responses.
- Protect confidential information
Employers should now consider implementing a clear AI policy if they have not already done so.
The policy should explain when AI can be used, prohibit employees from uploading confidential company information or colleagues’ personal data into public AI platforms, and remind employees that they remain responsible for the accuracy of any information submitted on their behalf.
It is also sensible to include a paragraph within disciplinary and grievance procedures (and in fact any procedures related to a formal process) that cover the use of AI. This could then be drawn to their attention during the process if the use of AI is clear.
- Train your managers
Finally, managers should understand both the benefits and the limitations of AI. This should include guidance on recognising AI-generated documents, understanding that AI may misstate legal principles or cite inaccurate case law, and focusing investigations on establishing the underlying facts rather than becoming overwhelmed by lengthy legalistic submissions. This could be built into manager training, whether as a stand-alone or as part of training on disciplinaries and grievances.
Looking ahead
Although AI and LLMs (Large Language Models) are currently having the biggest impact on disciplinary and grievance procedures, this is only the beginning.
We are already seeing AI-assisted correspondence in flexible working requests, redundancy consultations, capability processes, settlement negotiations and in ET claims. As AI becomes embedded within everyday working life, employers will need to adapt their processes accordingly.
The key is not to be intimidated by AI-generated correspondence. Focus on the facts, encourage conversations rather than lengthy written exchanges, ensure managers are appropriately trained and put clear boundaries in place around the safe use of AI.
Those organisations that adapt now will be best placed to deal with the opportunities, and the challenges, that AI continues to bring to the workplace.
CONTACT US
We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.
lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk
Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law