AI-assisted grievances pile pressure on people teams, survey finds...
Published Feb 25, 2026
By Mahalia Mayne 25 February 2026
A growing number of employees are using artificial intelligence to write grievances and appeal redundancies and disciplinaries. However, the often inaccurate information AI cites is complicating the workplace dispute processes.
More than 8 in 10 (83 per cent) HR directors reported working with a business facing issues related to employee AI use in the past 12 months, according to a survey by HR outsourcing business The HR Dept.
Almost all (95 per cent) respondents reported encountering cases where an employee used AI to raise a grievance or navigate the dispute process.
In 78 per cent of cases, AI-generated grievances relied on inaccurate information or misrepresentations, while 11 per cent said the documents were full of incorrect information.
“Employees, in some cases, may take what AI says as fact and send it to their employer without fact-checking or reading into the information from which AI has drawn its conclusions and summaries,” said Lucy Westlake, director of HR Dept Norwich and the east coast.
The inaccuracies in AI-generated grievances are generating “increased confusion and frustration” among HR teams, she warned.
It is also raising expectations among aggrieved employees, who are relying on the flawed advice of AI chatbots. This can create a sense of being “cheated” when that outcome is not met, Westlake said.
“HR has a new role to play in justifying and providing that the existing policy and process is correct, as well as keeping up to date with case law and reflecting this in changes to procedures themselves,” she added.
Quantity over quality
Even routine grievance cases are being complicated by AI tools that prioritise volume over substance. HR directors provided case studies of employees using tools such as ChatGPT to produce more than 10 pages of material for a single grievance.
Others are adopting specialised tools such as Grapple Law to draft ‘without prejudice’ letters that mimic a professional legal tone but lack accuracy.
“The wording can sound convincing while still being legally wrong. AI can help organise a complaint and give it a more formal tone, but it does not check the facts or apply employment law reliably,” explained James Rowland, commercial director at Neathouse Partners.
These grievances are taking HR teams longer to read and are more challenging to evaluate. The impact is being felt most acutely among smaller employers that lack the resources to manage lengthy claims.
“That adds strain to HR teams, which have to sort genuine concerns from incorrect legal references, inflated assertions or claims that do not align with the actual framework,” Rowland added.
Of the HR directors who encountered AI-related issues this year, 44 per cent reported working with up to five businesses on these challenges, while 17 per cent had supported more than 10 organisations facing AI disputes.
The increase in AI-drafted grievances has coincided with a lengthening tribunal backlog. According to government statistics, the tribunal service held more than 500,000 open employment tribunal claims between July and September 2025.
However, AI-written claims rarely succeed. Of the HR directors who saw AI-assisted grievances reach a tribunal, 86 per cent reported that none of the employee cases had been successful.
“Dealing with grievances could drain resources that employers are unable to spare,” said Phil Coxon, managing director at HR software company Breathe HR. “Employers must ensure they can easily find and cite relevant policies and employee data, so they're prepared if they do find themselves faced with tribunal cases featuring AI-generated claims.”
Source: