AI Generated Grievances, Appeals And Workplace Complaints: What Employers Need To Know
Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly being used in the workplace for drafting emails, reports and business documents. However, employers are now seeing AI being used by employees to prepare workplace grievances, disciplinary appeals, flexible working appeals and other formal complaints.
AI can help employees organise their thoughts and communicate concerns more clearly. However, it can also create new challenges for employers. Lengthy submissions, complex legal arguments and professionally drafted documents can sometimes make relatively straightforward workplace concerns appear more serious or legally complex than they actually are.
This does not mean employers should dismiss AI-generated complaints or assume concerns are not genuine. Instead, employers need to understand how AI is changing workplace communications and how to respond appropriately whilst continuing to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice and their own internal procedures.
The Rise Of AI-Generated Workplace Complaints
Many AI tools can generate detailed letters, grievances and appeals within seconds. Employees may use these tools to improve grammar, structure their concerns or help draft documents they feel unable to write themselves.
In some cases, this can be beneficial. Employees who struggle with written communication may find it easier to explain their concerns. However, employers are increasingly receiving submissions that contain extensive legal terminology, lengthy narratives and references to employment law that the employee may not fully understand.
As AI tools become more widely available, it is likely that their use in workplace disputes will continue to increase.
Understanding “Grievance Inflation”
One emerging challenge is what some HR professionals have begun to describe as “grievance inflation”. This occurs when relatively straightforward workplace concerns are expanded into lengthy documents containing multiple allegations, extensive legal references and detailed requests for action.
A concern that might previously have been raised in a short email can become a multi-page grievance document covering numerous issues, some of which may not be directly relevant to the original concern.
Whilst employers should take all concerns seriously, longer documents do not automatically mean the underlying issue is more serious. Employers should focus on identifying the key concerns being raised rather than becoming distracted by the volume of material submitted.
Signs A Submission May Have Been Influenced By AI
Employers should avoid making assumptions about how a document was created. However, some indicators may suggest AI has been used to assist with drafting.
Potential signs include:
- Highly formal language that differs significantly from the employee’s normal communication style.
- Repeated use of legal terminology.
- References to legislation or legal principles without clear relevance to the situation.
- Unusually structured or formulaic wording.
- Lengthy documents containing repetitive content.
- References to legal cases or authorities without explanation.
- Generic wording that appears disconnected from the specific workplace circumstances.
The fact that AI may have been used does not invalidate the concerns being raised. The focus should remain on the substance of the complaint rather than the method used to draft it.
The Risk Of AI-Generated Legal Arguments
One of the most significant risks associated with AI-generated grievances and appeals is the inclusion of inaccurate legal information.
AI tools are known to occasionally generate incorrect information, sometimes referred to as “hallucinations”. This can include references to legislation that does not exist, inaccurate descriptions of legal principles or citations to employment tribunal cases that are entirely fictional.
Employers should therefore be cautious when reviewing legal arguments contained within employee submissions. Any legal references should be independently verified before being relied upon.
The existence of inaccurate legal arguments does not mean the underlying concern lacks merit. Employers should separate the factual concerns from any unsupported legal assertions.
Managing Lengthy And Complex Submissions
The ACAS Code of Practice requires employers to consider grievances fairly and conduct reasonable investigations where appropriate. However, employers are not required to investigate every sentence of a lengthy document if multiple points relate to the same underlying issue.
A practical approach is to identify the core concerns being raised and group related allegations together. This helps ensure the issues are addressed thoroughly without allowing the process to become unnecessarily complicated.
Employers should also use grievance meetings and appeal hearings to clarify concerns and confirm the specific issues the employee wishes to be considered.
Confidentiality And Data Protection Concerns
Many publicly available AI tools process information entered by users through external systems. Employees may not always appreciate the risks associated with entering confidential workplace information into these platforms.
Examples of information that could create concerns include:
- Personal data relating to colleagues.
- Customer information.
- Confidential business information.
- Internal investigation material.
- Commercially sensitive information.
- Protected personal data.
Employers should consider whether their existing policies provide sufficient guidance on the use of AI tools and the handling of confidential information.
Focusing On The Employee’s Genuine Concerns
Regardless of how a grievance or appeal has been drafted, the employer’s objective should be to understand the employee’s genuine concerns.
Managers should focus on:
- The specific workplace issues being raised.
- The outcomes the employee is seeking.
- The evidence supporting the concerns.
- Any practical steps that may resolve the issue.
Direct discussion with the employee will often provide greater clarity than the written submission alone and can help separate genuine concerns from AI-generated embellishment.
Do Your Policies Need Updating?
As AI use becomes more common, employers should review whether existing policies adequately address the use of AI in the workplace.
Areas worth reviewing include:
- Acceptable Use Policies.
- Information Security Policies.
- Confidentiality Requirements.
- Disciplinary Procedures.
- Grievance Procedures.
- Data Protection Policies.
- AI Usage Policies.
The aim should not be to prevent employees using AI altogether, but to establish clear expectations regarding confidentiality, accuracy and responsible use.
Final Thoughts
AI is changing the way workplace concerns are communicated. Whilst AI-generated grievances and appeals can create additional challenges, employers should remain focused on the substance of the issues being raised rather than the technology used to prepare the document.
By taking a balanced approach, verifying legal claims, protecting confidential information and concentrating on the employee’s genuine concerns, employers can continue to manage grievances and appeals fairly, effectively and in accordance with good employment relations practice.
How Kea HR Can Help
Kea HR provides practical support with workplace investigations, grievance procedures, disciplinary processes and appeals. We can help employers identify the key issues within complex submissions, ensure concerns are handled fairly and maintain legally compliant processes in an increasingly AI-influenced workplace.
Get the Latest Legislation News and My Top Tips delivered straight to your inbox |
 |
