AI-Generated Workplace Complaints: A Practical Guide for Employers
Artificial intelligence is now becoming part of everyday workplace communication. Employees are increasingly using tools such as ChatGPT and other AI platforms to draft emails, grievances, dignity at work complaints and even responses during disciplinary or investigation processes.
For employers, this creates a new and often uncomfortable challenge. The issue is not necessarily that AI is being used, but rather how employers manage complaints that may appear highly polished, overly legalistic or disconnected from the employee's own understanding of the issue.
In many workplaces, HR professionals and managers are now encountering grievances that contain extensive legal terminology, references to legislation or case law, and language that appears significantly different from the employee's normal communication style. In some cases, when managers meet with the employee to discuss the complaint, the employee struggles to explain key aspects of what was submitted or what outcome they are actually seeking.
This raises important procedural and practical questions for employers.
Consider the following example.
An employee submits a six-page grievance alleging bullying, procedural unfairness, discrimination and breaches of constitutional rights. The complaint references multiple legal concepts and includes language copied directly from employment law sources.
At first glance, the grievance appears extremely serious and highly complex. However, during the grievance meeting, the employee explains that their main concern is actually a breakdown in communication with their manager following a disagreement over annual leave.
The employee confirms they used AI to "help write the complaint properly" because they were unsure how to structure it.
Situations like this are becoming increasingly common.
The challenge for employers is understanding how to separate the language of the complaint from the substance of the issue, while still ensuring the employee is treated fairly and the concern is taken seriously.
The Workplace Relations Commission has already recognised the growing use of AI in employment-related submissions.
In 2025, the WRC published Guidance for Litigants on the Use of AI Before the WRC, which outlines important principles around the responsible use of AI in complaints and submissions. The guidance makes clear that parties remain responsible for any material submitted, even where AI tools have been used to assist in drafting. (workplacerelations.ie)
The WRC guidance highlights several important risks, including:
inaccurate or fabricated legal citations,
misleading factual content,
confidentiality and data protection concerns,
and submissions that the individual cannot fully explain or stand over.
Importantly, the WRC states that individuals may be asked to explain or clarify submissions made using AI and remain accountable for the accuracy of the information provided.
While this guidance applies specifically to WRC proceedings, many of the practical principles are highly relevant within workplace grievance and investigation processes.
The key point for employers is that the use of AI should not automatically undermine the credibility of a complaint.
Employees may use AI for many legitimate reasons, including:
difficulty expressing concerns,
lack of confidence in writing,
or a desire to present issues more clearly.
However, problems arise where the complaint process becomes focused on AI-generated language rather than the underlying workplace issue.
Employers should avoid becoming distracted by legal terminology or assumptions that a complaint is "not genuine" simply because AI may have assisted in drafting it.
Instead, the focus should remain on understanding:
what happened,
when it happened,
who was involved,
what impact it had,
and what resolution the employee is seeking.
In practice, this often requires managers to slow the process down and bring conversations back to factual workplace concerns rather than legal language.
One of the biggest risks is overreacting to the wording of an AI-generated complaint.
A grievance drafted using AI may contain allegations such as "constructive dismissal", "victimisation", "breach of constitutional rights" or "psychological injury", even where the employee themselves does not fully understand these terms.
If employers respond defensively or immediately escalate matters into formal legalistic processes, this can unnecessarily increase tension and complexity.
Equally, employers should avoid dismissing concerns because the complaint appears overly polished or inconsistent with the employee's normal communication style.
The safest approach is usually to acknowledge the complaint, meet with the employee and carefully clarify the substance of the issues being raised.
Many organisations already have policies covering acceptable technology use, confidentiality and data protection. However, relatively few employers currently address the use of AI in workplace communications or employment processes.
As AI usage becomes more common, employers should consider incorporating practical guidance into a broader workplace AI policy.
This does not necessarily need to prohibit AI use. In reality, attempting to ban AI entirely is unlikely to be practical or enforceable.
Instead, policies should focus on responsible use.
For example, employers may wish to clarify that:
employees remain responsible for the accuracy of complaints or submissions,
individuals may be asked to explain concerns raised within grievances,
confidential or sensitive workplace information should not be uploaded into public AI platforms,
AI-generated legal references or allegations should be independently verified,
and AI should not be used to create misleading or intentionally exaggerated complaints.
Importantly, managers and HR teams should also receive guidance on how to handle AI-assisted complaints fairly and consistently.
At its core, a grievance process is still about understanding and resolving workplace concerns fairly.
The introduction of AI does not change the employer's obligation to follow fair procedures, conduct appropriate fact-finding or treat complaints seriously. However, it does require employers to adapt how they approach communication and complaint handling.
The most effective organisations are likely to be those that recognise AI as a workplace reality and develop practical frameworks around its use, rather than ignoring it entirely.
For employers, the goal should not be to police whether AI was used, but rather to ensure that workplace complaints remain accurate, understandable, evidence-based and capable of being fairly assessed.
As workplace technology continues to evolve, policies, manager training and grievance procedures will also need to evolve alongside it.
Employers will be required to match employee contributions to the scheme, ensuring that workers who meet the eligibility criteria—aged 23 to 60 and earning €20,000 or more per year—are automatically enrolled unless they are already part of a pension plan.
Ireland's gender pay gap reporting obligations are expanding in 2025, with the reporting threshold lowering from 150 employees to 50 employees. This means that thousands of additional businesses will now be required to provide detailed gender pay gap disclosures.