Businesses are being warned not to be intimidated by increasingly detailed employee grievances, as artificial intelligence (AI) makes it easier for employees to produce formal-looking workplace complaints with references to various legal concepts.
While this can make complaints appear more serious at first glance, employers are being urged to focus on the underlying issues, rather than the language used.
“Many employers are receiving grievances that read as though they have been drafted by a professional,” said Karen Cole, the Partner who heads the employment team at RIAA Barker Gillette (UK) LLP. “In reality, the employee may simply have used an AI tool to help organise their thoughts and present their concerns.”
One common issue is that complaints can sound legally sophisticated while failing to clearly explain what has actually happened. In some cases, the wording may exaggerate the significance of relatively straightforward workplace concerns. In others, important details may be missing, inconsistent or unclear, despite the confident tone of the document.
As a result, employers can find themselves spending time responding to the language of a complaint rather than addressing the substance of the issue itself.
Whilst AI can be a useful assistant, there are increasing instances of it misapplying the facts and convincing employees that there is a compelling legal case, when, on the facts, there isn’t.
Karen Cole says the best approach remains the simplest: identify the core concern, investigate the facts and follow established grievance procedures.
“If a complaint is unclear, ask questions. Don’t be distracted by the language or specialist terminology. The important thing is understanding exactly what the employee claims has happened and making sure that their concern is dealt with fairly and consistently.”
The issue comes at a time when employers are already dealing with significant changes to employment law. Under the changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act, employees will be able to bring unfair dismissal claims much earlier in their employment, with the window narrowing to a six-month qualifying period from January 2027. In practice, this means that any employee who has been in continuous employment from next month (July 2026) will be able to bring an unfair dismissal claim from January 2027.
For smaller businesses, in particular, this is likely to increase the importance of how grievances and workplace concerns are handled.
“As employees gain access to employment rights earlier in their employment, employers will need robust processes in place from day one. That includes training managers, documenting decisions carefully and ensuring grievance procedures are followed consistently,” explained Karen Cole.
While some businesses are considering whether to use AI to help them respond, with the machines facing up to each other, experts caution against leaving it to the technology to assess grievances or make decisions.
“With adequate checks in place, the technology can certainly help with administrative tasks, such as summarising documents or organising information, but over-reliance on AI could increase the risk of unfair or inconsistent outcomes. Workplace disputes often involve context, nuance and judgement that cannot easily be captured by automated systems,” added Karen.
“In all this, the human touch is important: if a grievance doesn’t seem to add up, then a quiet conversation may help bring out the facts and make all the difference.”
This is a theme explored further by Grayson Stuckey in his recent article, Rights and wrongs: How AI is reshaping Employment Tribunal claims, which looks at how AI is influencing workplace disputes before they reach the Employment Tribunal.
About the author
Karen Cole is a Partner and Head of the Employment team at RIAA Barker Gillette. She has a range of expertise based on her employment law, dispute resolution, and litigation background. Karen provides employment law advice to businesses and individuals, whether contentious or not. She is a member of the Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) and the Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers (ARDL).