Employment

Robert Turner
September 2026

Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing workplace disputes. Employers are increasingly receiving written grievances that are significantly longer and more complex than only a year or two ago.

Given many organisations are encouraging employees to adopt generative AI in the workplace, it’s unsurprising that employees are turning those tools on employers when disputes arise.

While generative AI can undoubtedly help employees articulate concerns they might otherwise struggle to express, it can also make the grievance process more challenging for employers. Despite this, employers’ legal obligations remain unchanged. Organisations must still identify the substance of a complaint, investigate the issues raised fairly and reasonably, and avoid allowing the format or volume of a grievance to distract from the underlying concerns.

The challenges of AI-drafted grievances

When a grievance is raised, employers should act promptly to identify the key issues, investigate them properly and reach a reasoned and fair outcome. However, AI-generated grievances are often lengthy, containing unnecessary or incorrect legal references and overlapping allegations that go beyond the core of the underlying complaint.

Employers may understandably feel obliged to investigate each allegation separately. In practice, doing so can add unnecessary delay, cost and complexity. As a result, a grievance that might once have been concluded within a couple of weeks can take several months, with the delay itself becoming a further source of complaint.

AI tends to apply multiple legal labels to the same factual issue. For example, a single management decision may be characterised by AI as bullying, discrimination, victimisation, a breach of trust and confidence and whistleblowing detriment. While it is true these concepts have distinct legal meanings, they may arise from the same underlying facts and will not necessarily require separate investigations.

AI-generated grievances often contain exaggerated language that is less common in manually written complaints. This can result in an unnecessarily inflammatory tone, stoking tensions between those involved.

Generative AI also tends to be overly optimistic. If employees are relying on AI to draft a grievance, they may also be relying on it for legal advice with a view to bringing an Employment Tribunal claim. AI can lack balance and tends to tell users what they want to hear, with results easily manipulated by the user’s input; ask AI an angry question and you will likely get a similarly toned ‘solution’.

That is not to say that AI has no place in the grievance process. Used appropriately, it can help employees organise their thoughts, communicate their concerns clearly and ensure that important issues are not overlooked.

What does the ACAS Code require?

The ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures sets out the minimum standards employers should follow for handling disciplinaries and grievances at work. Broadly, it requires employers to deal with grievances fairly and consistently. It does not require a separate response to every paragraph of an AI-generated grievance, provided the employer has properly identified and addressed the substance of the employee’s material concerns.

ACAS has recently issued revised guidance which places greater emphasis on concise, solution-focused grievances. Employees are encouraged to provide a “short, clear written explanation of the concern”, while employers are advised to allow employees to provide further information if needed. Employees should also communicate how they would like their concern resolved and explain what steps the organisation has already taken to resolve it (or why none have been taken). Unfortunately, this guidance alone is unlikely to make any material difference to the use of AI by employees with grievances.

So what can employers do?

Employers should use a two-pronged approach: reduce the risk of grievances arising at all, and have clear strategies in place to deal with them when they do arise:

  • Build a positive workplace culture. Conflicts are less likely to arise when everyone feels respected and supported.
  • Have effective policies. Ensure everyone knows what is and isn’t acceptable in the workplace, as well as what is expected of them on a day-to-day basis.
  • Review your grievance procedure. Inform employees that grievances should be a short, clear written explanation of their concern, and that further information may be provided later if necessary. Ask employees to identify their preferred resolution and any steps already taken to resolve the matter informally.
  • Define the scope early. If, despite the above, a grievance is particularly lengthy, ask the employee to identify the key issues they want investigated and the outcomes they seek.
  • Investigate issues, not paragraphs. Group related allegations into themes, rather than treating every sentence as a separate complaint.
  • Focus on facts, not legal labels. Investigators should establish what happened, rather than trying to categorise events with reference to particular types of legal claims. Consequences can be assessed separately, if required.
  • Manage further submissions. AI makes it easy to generate successive rounds of representations. Clearly communicate when evidence gathering has concluded and reserve the right not to consider repetitive or immaterial further submissions.
  • Train investigators. Managers and HR professionals should understand how to distinguish evidence from assertion, identify repetition and keep investigations focused on the issues that genuinely matter.
  • Consider the outcome. What does the employee really want to achieve in the grievance they’ve raised? Get to the heart of the problem and try to solve it.
  • Document everything. Keep a clear audit trail explaining how the scope of the grievance was defined, why any allegations were grouped together and how the outcome was reached.

If you would like to discuss AI within the employment context, or a current grievance, please get in touch with a member of the Employment team.