Generative AI is changing the way some employees raise grievances at work. A complaint that might once have been a few paragraphs can now become pages of detailed arguments, references to employment law and formal-sounding claims, all produced in a matter of minutes.
For employers, that can create a very practical and costly problem. Someone still has to work out what the employee is actually complaining about, which points need investigating and whether the legal claims being made are accurate. And while AI can produce another lengthy response almost instantly, properly reviewing and responding to it takes time.
That doesn’t mean a grievance should be treated differently simply because an employee has used AI to help write it. The underlying concerns still need to be taken seriously and handled fairly. But employers also need to keep the process manageable, focused on the facts and proportionate to the issues being raised.
Key Takeaways:
- AI can help employees produce longer and more legally detailed grievances, but the length or sophistication of a complaint doesn’t determine its validity.
- Employers should focus on the underlying allegations and evidence rather than whether AI was used to draft the grievance.
- AI-generated legal arguments, case references and conclusions shouldn’t be assumed to be accurate and may need to be checked.
- Employers don’t necessarily need to respond individually to every piece of narrative or legal commentary if the substantive issues can be clearly identified and addressed.
- Where a grievance is particularly lengthy or unclear, employers can seek clarification about the specific allegations and outcomes the employee wants considered.
- Employers should continue to follow a fair grievance process, with human judgement remaining central to the investigation and any decisions made.
AI Is Changing the Economics of Workplace Disputes
Until recently, producing a lengthy grievance containing detailed legal arguments, case references and carefully structured allegations required significant time and/or professional support. Generative AI has changed that equation.
An employee can now produce the kind of document that might previously have taken hours of research or legal assistance in minutes. They can ask AI to strengthen their arguments, identify potential claims, reference employment legislation, draft a subject access request and respond almost immediately to the employer’s next communication.
For employers, however, the cost of dealing with that material hasn’t fallen in the same way.
Someone still has to read the grievance, identify the allegations, check the facts, review the evidence, investigate what happened and reach a reasonable decision. A long AI-assisted response may take minutes to produce but hours or days to deal with properly.
That imbalance is already becoming visible beyond internal HR processes.
In September 2026, The Business reported the case of a Glasgow construction company employing around ten people that faced multiple discrimination allegations from one employee. According to the company’s managing director, the business received hundreds of pages of AI-generated case law and legal material. An initial gender discrimination complaint was followed by a racial discrimination claim and then a disability discrimination argument after earlier allegations failed to progress.
The employee was representing themselves, while the employer said responding to the claims consumed many hours and cost the small business thousands of pounds in legal fees.
That example gets to the heart of what AI changes for employers. The cost of generating a legal argument has collapsed. The cost of properly reviewing and responding to one hasn’t. The same problem is becoming visible at tribunal level.
In Hancox v Sutherland & Ors, the Employment Appeal Tribunal was presented with a 300-page skeleton argument of almost 132,000 words that the litigant confirmed had been generated entirely using ChatGPT. The deputy High Court judge concluded that the document had obscured rather than illuminated the issues before the tribunal.
It’s an extreme example, but a useful one for employers:
Generative AI is very good at producing more: more arguments, more legal terminology, more potential claims and more supporting text. That doesn’t necessarily produce a clearer account of what happened or a stronger underlying case.
The wider Employment Tribunal system is experiencing a similar problem. The Law Gazette reported in 2026 that practitioners were seeing AI increase both the complexity of claims and the volume of paperwork. It noted a particular problem with AI tools working from a claimant’s version of events and producing apparently authoritative analysis without access to the other side’s evidence or context.
Does it Matter if an Employee Used AI to Write Their Grievance?
You might suspect that a grievance has been written using ChatGPT or another AI tool, especially if the language suddenly becomes much more formal or the document contains extensive legal arguments. But trying to establish whether AI was used is unlikely to be the most useful place to focus attention.
The grievance still needs to be considered on its merits. AI might have helped an employee organise their thoughts or explain something they were struggling to put into words. That doesn’t make the underlying complaint any less genuine.
Equally, it’s important not to have a knee-jerk reaction that a polished and legally detailed grievance should automatically be given more weight. AI can misunderstand the law, apply it incorrectly or produce case references that don’t support the argument being made (or that don’t even exist). It’s also working with the version of events it has been given by the employee, not the evidence available to the employer.
Instead of questioning whether the employee used AI to write it, a more useful perspective is: “What are they actually alleging, and what do we need to investigate?”
How Should Employers Handle an AI-Generated Grievance?
The usual principles of a fair grievance process still apply. The difference is that employers may need to do more work at the start to separate the actual complaint from everything around it.
Get Clear on What the Employee Is Alleging
If a grievance runs to dozens of pages, don’t assume every paragraph represents a separate issue that needs investigating.
Identify the main allegations and, where necessary, confirm them with the employee. You might summarise your understanding of the issues and ask the employee to clarify anything that’s unclear before the investigation moves forward.
This can help keep both sides focused on the same issues and reduce the risk of important points becoming buried in a much larger document.
Focus on the Facts
A grievance might describe an incident as discrimination, harassment, victimisation or a breach of employment law. Those labels shouldn’t replace the investigation itself.
Start with what happened.
- Who was involved?
- When did it happen?
- What evidence is available?
- Are there witnesses?
- What explanation has the other person given?
Once the facts are clear, you can consider what they mean and whether further HR or legal advice is needed.
Check Legal Claims Rather Than Taking Them at Face Value
AI can produce convincing legal explanations that aren’t necessarily correct. Legislation may be misunderstood, cases may be irrelevant to the circumstances or, in some instances, references may simply be wrong.
Employers shouldn’t ignore the grievance because it contains errors, but neither should they feel they have to accept every legal argument presented. The underlying concern may still be valid even if the employee’s AI-generated interpretation of the law isn’t.
Keep the Process Proportionate
A 20-page grievance doesn’t automatically require a 20-page response.
The employer’s job is to investigate the relevant issues fairly and explain the outcome clearly. That doesn’t necessarily mean responding line by line to repeated arguments, background commentary or every piece of legal analysis included in the original document.
Where a grievance is particularly long or complicated, it’s also reasonable to explain that the business needs more time to investigate it properly and keep the employee updated on progress.
Should Your Grievance Policy Address AI?
You don’t necessarily need to mention AI in your grievance policy. But it’s worth checking that your process is clear about what employees need to provide when raising a complaint.
For example, you can ask employees to explain what happened, when it happened, who was involved and what they would like the business to do. You can also explain how evidence should be submitted and what happens if they raise new issues after an investigation has started.
As AI makes it much easier to add more detail, legal arguments and supporting material, employers may also need to think about how much information they reasonably ask employees to provide. Some commentators are questioning whether the use of AI tools means a word limit should be imposed on employee grievances. One suggestion is to keep the main grievance within a set length, while allowing evidence and a timeline to be provided separately.
We don’t have clear guidance from the courts yet on ideas like using word limits for internal grievances, and some complaints will naturally need more explanation than others. So rather than jumping straight to a fixed limit, employers could start by making it clear that grievances should focus on the issues that need to be investigated.
There is also your organisation’s own use of AI to consider. If HR teams are using AI to summarise grievances or organise information, businesses need clear rules about which tools can be used, what employee information can be entered and what must be reviewed by a person.
The aim isn’t to create a whole new grievance process for AI. It’s to make sure the process you already have still works as the way employees raise complaints changes.
Keeping Employee Grievances Fair and Manageable
AI may be changing how grievances are written, but it doesn’t change the basics of how employers should respond. The focus should remain on understanding what happened, investigating the relevant issues and giving the employee a fair outcome.
Where AI does create a challenge is in the amount of information employers may now have to deal with. Clear grievance procedures can help keep the process focused without dismissing genuine concerns or getting drawn into every legal argument an AI tool has produced.
If you’re reviewing your grievance procedure or need support handling a complex employee complaint, THSP’s HR and Employment Law team can help you manage the process fairly and confidently. Get in touch to speak to our team.
Frequently Asked Questions About AI-Generated Employee Grievances
Can an employer ask an employee whether they used AI to write a grievance?
You can ask, but establishing whether AI was used is unlikely to be the most important issue. The focus should be on the concerns the employee has raised and whether they need to be investigated.
What should you do if AI has cited a case that doesn’t exist?
Don’t rely on case names or legal claims in a grievance without checking them. An incorrect or invented reference doesn’t automatically undermine the employee’s wider complaint, so the underlying facts should still be considered.
Can an employee keep adding new issues to an existing grievance?
Employees may raise further concerns while a grievance is being handled. If this happens, the employer should decide whether the new issue can reasonably be included in the current investigation or whether it would be clearer to deal with it separately.
Can employers use AI when handling a grievance?
AI may be useful for administrative tasks such as organising or summarising information, but employers need to consider confidentiality and data protection before entering employee information into an AI tool. Decisions about the investigation and outcome should remain subject to human review.
When should an employer seek professional advice about a grievance?
It may be sensible to get HR or employment law advice where a grievance involves serious allegations, discrimination, whistleblowing, several overlapping complaints or a risk of further legal action.