Tag: Grievance

Categories
Communication Confidentiality Data Protection Act 2018 Disciplinary Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 GDPR Grievance Lousha Reynolds

AI in Disciplinary & Grievance Processes: A growing challenge for employers

An iPhone with ChatGPT's LLM open on the screen, asking the question "What can I help with?"

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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Discrimination Law Diversity Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Gender Inclusivity Grievance Maternity Parental Rights Protected Characteristics Video

Video | Sending a pregnant worker home

YouTube video playing on a phone

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel — please click here to watch Anna discussing the issues that arose in a recent case that went to a Tribunal in Manchester in relation to a company sending a pregnant worker home during the pandemic.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Dispute Management Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Employment Tribunal Grievance Investigations Victimisation

Dangers of a victimisation claim

Royal Courts of Justice, London

A recent case illustrates the risk employers face every time they receive a grievance in relation to a victimisation complaint.

If the grievance has any kind of discrimination angle to it, bullying harassment or an argument about less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic or an allegation that the employer has failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate a health issue, the employer also runs the risk of a victimisation complaint.

The raising of the grievance, if it references the protected characteristic and allegations of some form of discrimination, becomes a “protected act”. If, as a result of that protected act, the employee then suffers some other detriment, this will give them grounds to claim victimisation.

This can be as simple as suffering the consequences of colleagues knowing that a grievance has been raised and behaving differently towards the person who has raised the grievance as a result. For example, a manager who has been accused may be very angry about the accusation that has been made or other colleagues who are interviewed as witnesses in the grievance process might change their behaviour towards the individual, “sending them to Coventry” or even telling them that they agree with what the employee has done. One of the first mediations that I was ever involved with, involved this scenario where a colleague clearly felt a manager didn’t deserve to be criticised by the other employee who had raised a grievance.

A recent case that illustrated this, was a case against Online Travel Training Group Ltd by Mr Weinreb. He was a Business Development Manager and had some kind of altercation with a Finance Manager after asking for her help. It sounds as though the Finance Manager didn’t like the employee and felt he should have known how to do the things he was asking for help with. The Tribunal felt that she goaded him and created conflict. Another colleague implied Mr Weinreb had been Jewish during a discussion about team work, and he also alleged that a conversation about the gay dating app ‘Grinder’ implied his colleagues thought he was a closet homosexual.

The case ended up in cross-grievances – the Finance Manager raised a grievance against Mr Weinreb because he recorded a conversation held about his commission. Mr Weinreb raised a grievance alleging discrimination and complaining about how an employment review meeting had been held.

Faced with the cross-grievance, the Managing Director missed the opportunity to go to a mediator and really get to the bottom of what was going on between the two individuals. Instead the pair were told that they should only communicate with each other by email (Tip: never go down that route).

Matters were investigated but played down – the Finance Manager was reminded of her obligation to show respect to her colleagues. Mr Weinreb attended a Grievance Outcome Meeting with the Managing Director who sounds like she lost her temper. At one point, she banged on the desk and told Mr Weinreb that she was very upset and offended by his allegations of discrimination about his colleagues (Tip: never do this!).

Mr Weinreb clearly didn’t feel listened to and this is a very important part of any grievance process and so appealed the grievance outcome.

The company subsequently dismissed Mr Weinreb for his “unacceptable conduct”. The Managing Director felt that his allegations had been spurious.

The banging on the table at the grievance outcome and failure to give Mr Weinreb any details about why his employment was being terminated were the acts of victimisation in this particular case. It was found that the Managing Director would not have behaved in the way that she had, had the employee not complained of discrimination in the first place.

Since employers are vulnerable to the emotional responses of those accused in grievances and those around them, it is very important that employers must always make it clear to those involved that any mistreatment of the employee who has raised a grievance will, in itself, be a disciplinary issue and that they are alert to their behaviour so that they can take action when necessary.

Refreshing Law
3 June 2021

Categories
Acas Anna Denton-Jones Disclosure Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Employment Tribunal Grievance Investigations

Does an employer have to disclose the investigation report?

View of the City of London at sunset

At first glance, one might think the answer to this question was rather obvious, in that the employee raising the grievance is going to want to see that the investigation has been done thoroughly and fairly in order to be able to accept that the employer is following the correct processes based on the evidence.  Indeed, if you didn’t disclose these papers to the employee, it is likely to foster distress and further antagonise what may already be the steps on the way to a breakdown in trust and confidence between the parties.

Having said that, are there circumstances in which you can decline to show the employee parts of the evidence?  It is worth noting that the ACAS Code of Practice in relation to grievance procedures does not grant a specific “right” to the employee to see witness statements or any evidence that is part of an investigation.  

The employer is likely to be having to balance the rights of the employee against the rights of others who have also been named in the report, and to whom it may also owe duties such as  confidentiality, if that were the only basis on which it could obtain evidence.

The ACAS Guide to Conducting Workplace Investigations states “if an individual wishes to see a report they have been named in, they have got a right to see any parts of the report that contains information about them or that is reliant on information they have provided”.  That makes sense because they may want to correct a mistake that you have made in quoting them or if they disagree with an interpretation that has been made by the investigator. The ACAS Guidance goes onto say “however, they should not be allowed to see private information belonging to other individuals”. Thus, you would not necessarily be disclosing to them the entire report.  It may be that in sensitive cases, where perhaps co-operation in an investigation has only been able to be obtained by witnesses being promised anonymity, certain parts of the report/statements would have to be redacted.  In such circumstances, it may be that you change the names and other identifying information to, for example, numbers or letters, say witness B etc.

Ultimately, it is down to the employer to decide what the best thing to do is in each case and we would recommend that the rationale for acting in a particular way is recorded at the relevant time, so that if it is challenged later, at appeal or through the Tribunal, there is a record of the decision-making process.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Alternative Dispute Resolution Anna Denton-Jones Communication Confidentiality Conflict Disciplinary Disclosure Dispute Management Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Grievance HR Investigations Privacy Procedural Fairness

Showing the complaint to the employee

View of the City of London at sunset

You will be familiar with the idea that in a disciplinary process the person who is accused of wrongdoing should hear the case against them or should hear or be told the important parts of the evidence in support of that case so that they are given the opportunity to criticise or dispute that evidence and put forward their own arguments. This comes from a case of Spink -v- Express Foods Limited 1990.  But what about the situation where there is a grievance investigation?

The Acas Code is silent on this issue but focuses instead on the person who has raised the complaint. However, as part of the investigation into the complaints that that person has raised, you will need to interview anyone that they have accused of wrongdoing.  For example, there may be an allegation of bullying and harassment.

One option would be to simply show the person, perhaps the line manager, the grievance letter. This is the most open and transparent position and one would hope that any line manager would behave professionally, see the grievance for what it is, and be prepared to answer those allegations in full. This position accords with the concept of ‘natural justice’ – nothing is being hidden and the accused has full opportunity to have their input to what is being said about them.

However, there may be cases where there is a concern that to take this open position would perhaps inflame or fundamentally damage the working relationship between the person who has raised the grievance and, for example, their line manager. The investigator may feel that a better approach would be to not show the full letter to the person who has been accused but rather to take them through the contents of the letter through a process of questioning so that they still have full opportunity to answer what is being said, but perhaps in doing this they can soften the language a little and take some of the ‘heat’ out of the matter.  If the investigator does go down this route they will need to be skilled in questioning and make sure that they do give the full picture to the person so that they are being fair to everybody.  For example, it wouldn’t be appropriate to just say ‘what happened on 5th August?’ You would need to go further and ask ‘Joe Bloggs has stated that there was an argument between the two of you on 5th August. He has said that your voice was raised and that other people noticed that you were shouting.  Is that true?’

If the complainant’s letter refers to complaints against a number of different people then, again, it may be sensible to separate out the allegations so that you are only interviewing an individual about those matters that are relevant to them.

In any event, if the individual (for example, the line manager) is named in a grievance letter, strictly speaking, under the Data Protection Act, they can make a Subject Access Request requesting to see the contents of the letter.  For that reason, again, the employer may want to choose the most open position.

It could also be damaging, as regards the relationship between the employer and the person who has been accused (such as the line manager), if the employer does not disclose the contents of a grievance letter. The line manager may feel that something is being hidden or that they are not being given a full opportunity to answer the case against them, even though at this stage there is no hint of a disciplinary.

The employer will need to carefully weigh all of these issues before deciding how to proceed.  If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law