Managing AI-Assisted Employee Grievances: A Practical Guide for Employers
Key takeaways
- Generative AI tools now produce lengthy grievances that often assert wide-ranging complaints while omitting the specific facts an employer needs to investigate.
- Distinctive features, such as polished drafting, standardised phrasing, and inaccurate legal references, may indicate that a document was AI-assisted rather than personally authored.
- A grievance exists to secure a remedy, so employers should look past the presentation and identify the specific acts or omissions alleged to be at fault.
- An informal scoping conversation, held before any formal process, helps separate factual complaints from tone and clarifies the outcome the employee is seeking.
- Where specifics are unavailable, mediation or reliance on the recent, relevant and resolvable test allows an employer to respond proportionately.
The changing character of workplace grievances
Human resources practitioners are increasingly encountering grievances that appear to have been drafted with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence. Such documents tend to be considerably longer than those produced without technological support, and they frequently cite legislation and case law, some of which is accurate and some of which is not. Notwithstanding their length, they often lack the detail an employer requires in order to understand what is being alleged and what resolution is sought.
This development places pressure on employers and, ultimately, on the Employment Tribunal system. The time needed to address a detailed grievance can be substantial, and it may exceed the resources that an organisation is reasonably able to devote to the matter. Employers, therefore, benefit from a structured approach that allows them to determine, at an early stage, the substance of what is being raised.
Recognising an AI-assisted grievance
Several features may suggest that a grievance has been prepared with artificial intelligence rather than written personally by the employee. The standard of spelling, grammar and sentence construction is sometimes noticeably higher than the employee’s usual correspondence would indicate. Documents of this kind also tend to contain formulaic reassurances, such as statements that the author remains committed to their role or to a constructive resolution, without any accompanying explanation of what that resolution would involve. References to broad concepts, for example, support or a safe working environment, may appear without particulars.
A further indicator is the presence of legal citations that are inaccurate, incomplete or wholly fabricated. Because generative tools can produce plausible but incorrect references, employers should verify any authority relied upon before treating it as material. These features are indicative rather than conclusive, and their presence does not determine whether the underlying concerns are well-founded.
Establishing an appropriate response
An employer’s first task is to respond in a measured manner. The tone of an AI-assisted grievance may appear adversarial, but that tone does not necessarily reflect the employee’s own position. A person may resort to such tools because they lack confidence in expressing their concerns in writing. It is therefore preferable to concentrate on substance rather than presentation.
Employers are also encouraged to set aside the legal argument contained in the document, at least initially. The purpose of a grievance raised in good faith is to obtain a remedy for a perceived wrong. Neither the grievance nor any subsequent investigation is an end in itself. Each is a means of appropriately addressing the employee’s concerns. Where a satisfactory resolution can be reached without further damaging the working relationship, that outcome will usually serve the interests of all parties.
Focusing on specific allegations
To resolve a grievance, an employer generally needs to understand the precise conduct complained of, even before considering whether the allegations are accurate. Concepts such as bullying, harassment, discrimination and victimisation do not exist as general states or atmospheres. They arise only through particular acts or omissions attributable to identifiable individuals. A sufficient number of these incidents must be examined in order to form a view as to whether they occurred as described and, if so, why.
This requirement also protects the interests of anyone against whom allegations are made. A person accused of misconduct should be given enough detail to admit, deny or explain each matter individually. General allegations tend to attract general denials, with the result that the investigation achieves little and the working relationship may be further undermined. Investigating without specific information is unproductive, because the employer cannot know which facts are in issue or whether particular enquiries are relevant to a resolution.
The value of an informal scoping conversation
Given these considerations, employers may find it helpful to arrange an informal meeting with the complainant on receipt of a detailed or unclear grievance. Such a meeting is not disciplinary, is not formal and does not form part of the investigation itself. Its purpose is to allow both parties to distinguish the factual complaints from the document’s tone and to identify the specific behaviour, the individuals involved, and the relevant timing.
The reference to both parties is deliberate. In some cases, employees who submit AI-assisted grievances appear surprised by the content, suggesting the document may not fully reflect their intentions. A constructive approach is to explain that the employer simply wishes to understand the particular points to be investigated, is not expressing any view on their merits, and will proceed to the formal grievance procedure once there is a shared understanding of the issues.
Where the employee declines to engage
An employee may choose not to participate in such a discussion. This may occur because the individual recognises that certain allegations cannot be substantiated, or because the complaints appear less significant upon closer examination. A reluctance to engage need not concern the employer or the investigator. It is not their role to construct the employee’s case or to review past correspondence in order to identify the source of dissatisfaction. Where an allegation lacks examples or particulars, or otherwise fails the test of being recent, relevant and resolvable, the investigator may reasonably decline to pursue it further.
Mediation as an alternative route
As an alternative, and potentially before requesting further details, an employer may propose addressing the grievance through mediation. This approach can allow the parties to move directly to the question of resolution without an extended recitation of past events. Many complainants will welcome the opportunity to focus on outcomes rather than evidence.
A reluctance to accept mediation may itself be informative. It may indicate that the employee wishes to subject the individual concerned to a formal process, or that the employee is seeking to negotiate an exit without stating so directly. In either case, an early enquiry into the desired outcome can be illuminating. Asking what specifically would need to change for the grievance to be considered resolved is a legitimate question. An inability to answer it may suggest that the point has not been considered, and that the stated grievance does not reflect the employee’s actual objective.
Practical implications for employers
Both mediation and a reasonable attempt to reduce a grievance to identifiable specifics are difficult for either party to refuse without appearing unreasonable. The longer, more strongly worded, and more general the grievance, the greater the scope for an employer to conduct a preliminary analysis of it without stepping outside the range of reasonable responses.
Employers are therefore encouraged not to be deterred by the length, tone or inaccurate legal references of an AI-assisted grievance. Such a document is frequently an expression of a genuine concern, amplified by the employee’s difficulty in articulating it in their own words. Approached as such, rather than as a provocation, much of the apparent complexity may resolve once the underlying issues are identified and addressed through a fair and proportionate procedure.
