AI is changing how employment disputes are raised and pursued. We look at the practical steps employers can take to cut through the noise and deal with AI-generated disputes proportionately.

Published: 27 July 2026
Authors: Darlia Williams

Employees can now use free online tools to generate detailed grievances, tribunal pleadings, correspondence and broad data subject access requests in minutes. While that can help employees articulate their concerns clearly, it can also add complexity to the issues and bring in arguments that may not be legally correct. As a result, it means employers are receiving lengthy, legalistic documents from employees whose expectations for resolution may be shaped by AI, rather than qualified legal advisers. Given AI’s propensity to agree with the prompter, an employee’s expectations can be inflated without having an actual legal basis, making resolution of the issue more difficult.

For employers, this creates both burden and opportunity: more material to manage and more time and cost involved in dealing with disputes, but also more scope to narrow the issues, test the evidence and focus on the facts.

Practical steps for employers

Speak to the employee, not the document

One of the weaknesses of AI produced content is that it is only as good as the prompt and information provided to it. Where an employee gives an incomplete or one-sided account, the AI output is likely to amplify their perspective and present it in a more persuasive and often lengthy form.

For employers, a meeting, whether in person or online, will often be the quickest way to understand what the employee is really saying. It allows the employer to ask the employee to explain their concerns in their own words, identify the facts they rely on and clarify what outcome they want. In practice, employers should ask: what happened, who was involved, when did it occur, what evidence is available and what outcome is the employee seeking? The discussion should be documented carefully and used to define the scope of any investigation.

Follow the process

The ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures remains the minimum standard employers should follow when handling workplace issues. In AI-assisted disputes, that discipline matters even more. It gives employers a structure for dealing with lengthy correspondence: follow internal policies, keep clear records, investigate reasonably and communicate outcomes proportionately.

Don’t match volume with volume

Employers should not assume that a document is stronger because it is longer, or more persuasive because it cites legislation or case law. AI generated content may look daunting at first glance, but it can also reveal weaknesses in the employee’s case: missing dates, vague allegations, unsupported assumptions or legal points that do not match the facts or which are, in fact, incorrect. Employers should avoid validating inaccurate AI generated content and do not necessarily need to respond line by line to every aspect. A better approach is to identify the core allegations, investigate them properly and explain the outcome clearly.

Employers should also resist being pulled into legal arguments with employees. An employer’s role is not to debate the law or provide legal commentary; it is to understand the factual complaint, reach a sensible conclusion and decide what, if any, action should be taken. Where a grievance cites case law or legal principles, the employer can say that it has considered the points raised but has focused its investigation on the underlying factual concerns.

Put clear guardrails around AI use

Employers should consider introducing or updating an AI policy. This should explain:

• when employees may use AI tools
• whether tools should be limited to company approved ones only rather than publicly available tools
• what information must not be entered into public AI platforms in any circumstances
• the need for employees to check accuracy before relying on AI generated content and
• potential confidentiality, data protection and privilege risks.

A clear policy will not prevent every issue, but it should give employers a framework for managing AI use consistently and help identify where a breach of confidentiality or data protection has occurred for which disciplinary action against an employee may then be taken.

AI in the employment tribunal

AI is also making employment tribunal claims harder to manage and settle. Employees who rely on AI for an assessment of their claim may receive a confident, claimant-friendly output as well as suggested legal arguments, strategy and an overinflated estimation of the claim value. This can reinforce the claimant’s view of their case and entrench their position, particularly where the output has not been checked by a legal adviser.

For employers, this means receipt of more claims, more complexity, more ambitious applications and difficult settlement discussions. However, AI generated content often contains factual errors, incorrect case law, misconceived claims and disproportionately lengthy correspondence. This is where employers may have an opportunity. The Employment Tribunal may strike out misconceived claims and, whilst cost awards remain relatively rare, may award costs where an employee pursues meritless claims or otherwise acts vexatiously or unreasonably during proceedings by generating excessive correspondence.

AI use may also create targeted disclosure opportunities. Where employees use AI to generate content related to their dispute, the AI prompts used and their output may not be legally privileged and therefore may be disclosable in Employment Tribunal litigation. Employer requests for disclosure about AI use should however be targeted, proportionate and linked to the issues in dispute. They should not be used as a fishing expedition or as a substitute for engaging with the merits of the claim. The same point cuts both ways: if an employer has used AI in preparing correspondence, pleadings or evidence, it should be ready to explain and justify that use if challenged and ensure that all aspects are checked and accurate.

Key takeaway

AI is not going away. Employers should expect more lengthy grievances, more legalistic correspondence and more AI assisted tribunal claims. The answer is not to match volume with volume, or to treat every AI generated point as equally important. Instead, employers should keep the process disciplined: speak to employees directly, focus on the facts, comply with the ACAS Code and their internal policies, keep clear records and respond in a way that is proportionate, accurate and commercially sensible.