Why AI Generated Grievances Are Becoming a New HR Challenge

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are becoming a routine part of working life across the UK. With the rise of their use within businesses, we have also seen a marked rise in employees turning to AI systems to help them draft grievances, flexible working requests and even early versions of tribunal claim narratives. This shift is reshaping how workplace disputes are raised and presented, and as AI becomes a more common-place tool, we are expecting this trend to increase.

Whilst the use of AI can be hugely beneficial to employees and employers, allowing complaints to be articulated clearly and with reference to an employees rights, there are some significant issues that the use of AI creates for HR and employment lawyers alike.

Employers who understand the risks and opportunities created by this trend will be best placed to respond with confidence and fairness.

Why Employees Are Turning to AI

Employees often feel anxious about presenting a complaint in writing or unsure about how to frame allegations in a way that sounds formal or persuasive. AI offers instant structure, confident language and a sense of authority. Some tools analyse case law or tribunal outcomes and suggest arguments that can resemble legal submissions. This means that an employee can produce a long and polished grievance in minutes based on only a short description of events. For employers this can create the false impression that the employee has taken legal advice or fully understands the legal issues referenced in the letter.

Whilst this approach can be really useful for employees in articulating their concerns, and having these concerns properly considered, there are significant issues arising from this approach.

The Problems Emerging from AI Generated Grievances

One of the most noticeable issues is the length of many AI drafted grievances. These letters often include background, legal terminology and speculative arguments even when the employee has provided only limited information. Employers are now receiving complaints that run to several pages and appear complex at first glance. We have seen a trend of 50+ page grievances, which drag out lengthy narratives and legal jargon for a complaint that is very straightforward. The risk is that the employees actual complaint may be buried or distorted by these length submissions. There is also a risk that managers may assume the employee has developed a detailed claim when the underlying issue is far narrower. This can create unnecessary escalation and may affect the tone of the investigation.

Another problem we are seeing more and more, is that the employees themselves sometimes do not understand their own letters. AI tools often insert legal jargon and detailed allegations that go well beyond what the employee intended to raise. During meetings employees may struggle to explain what they meant because the wording came from the tool rather than from their own experience. This lack of clarity makes grievance investigations more challenging. Employers should focus on what the employee is actually trying to say and not rely too heavily on the content of an AI generated document.

The final, and perhaps most significant impact of AI drafting, is the continuing appearance of AI hallucinations. A hallucination is where an AI system will make statements which sound authoritative but are inaccurate or entirely invented. In the context of workplace complaints this can mean references to laws that do not apply, rights that do not exist or events that never occurred. Most commonly we are seeing case law or statute references citing that the actions of an employer breach this law, where that law doesn’t exist, or is for example an Australian statute which would not apply to the employee. If these errors are not identified early they can distort the investigation and lead to time and resources being spent on irrelevant issues. Employers should therefore verify key points directly with the employee to ensure that the investigation is grounded in real events.

Implications for Employment Law Processes

These problems do not mean that AI use is improper, or that a grievance clearly drafted using AI should be dismissed. They highlight the importance of adapting internal processes to a new and rapidly changing reality. Clarity and a focus on substance over style remain essential when handling AI assisted complaints. If the case gets to court, the burden is on the employee if they are using AI to ensure that what they have submitted accurately reflects the complaints they wish to bring. However, in the early grievance stages employers have a duty to get to the bottom of these complaints and listen to and seek to understand their employees.

The most significant implication for employers dealing with these kind of complaints, will be the time required to read and understand the complaint. It is key that employers still focus on the substance of the issues raised and seek to follow a fair process according to the Acas Code of Practice. The fact that a complaint is lengthy or legalistic does not change the obligation to investigate reasonably. What it does change is the importance of early clarification. A meeting that allows the employee to explain concerns in their own words can prevent confusion and reduce the risk of procedural unfairness.

What Employers Should Do Now

Employers should review internal policies to ensure that AI use is addressed clearly. HR teams and managers should be prepared for longer and more complex sounding complaints and should avoid treating them as conclusive evidence of a sophisticated claim. We recommend training HR teams on how to identify AI drafted grievances, and the correct process to follow if one is received.

If you require any advice or assistance in this area, our Employment Team is on hand to assist. We have significant experience dealing with complaints and claims drafted using AI, and can offer training or bespoke advice on your situation.

Please do not hesitate to contact a member of our employment law team.