Most workers who believe they have been treated unfairly at work never take formal action. But the growing use of artificial intelligence is beginning to change how employees raise workplace disputes, giving more people access to tools that can help them understand procedures and prepare complaints.
The largest survey of individual workplace conflict in Britain found that fewer than one in 10 workers who experienced a dispute took formal action, while fewer than one in 200 brought a case to an employment tribunal. Researchers have described the pattern as a pyramid, with many grievances at the base and only a small number reaching the legal system.
Fear of retaliation, the cost of legal advice and uncertainty about employment rights are among the reasons workers often decide not to act. Some also believe formal grievance procedures are intended for other types of employees.
Artificial intelligence is now challenging that pattern. A worker can describe a workplace dispute to an AI system and quickly receive an assessment of potential rights, a draft grievance letter and a complaint form without paying for professional advice.
Employment lawyers in the UK say AI-generated material now appears in almost every tribunal case they handle. Employers are also receiving grievances containing lengthy references to legal principles.
Ireland has experienced similar pressure. The Workplace Relations Commission received more than 10,500 complaint applications in 2025, a 44 per cent increase from the previous year, while the number of decisions issued declined.
The Law Society has identified AI as one factor contributing to the pressure on the commission. The WRC has published guidance for complainants after some submissions included inaccurate or invented legal citations.
However, the rise in complaints should not automatically be seen as abuse of the system. Some workers may simply be using rights that were previously difficult to exercise because they lacked access to affordable advice.
The main risk for employees using AI may be that the technology is too willing to agree with them. Research has found that leading AI models can affirm users’ views more frequently than humans, potentially encouraging people to become more confident in claims that have not been properly tested.
An AI system may accept a worker’s account of a dispute, attach legal terms to the behaviour and suggest possible compensation without examining all the evidence. This can create unrealistic expectations and lead to lengthy proceedings.
A recent case involving a former car wash employee highlighted the danger. The worker lost a WRC complaint after acknowledging that AI had helped prepare the form and generate parts of the narrative. The adjudicator said AI assistance was not improper, but the complainant remained responsible for the accuracy of the material submitted.
Experts advise workers to begin by following their employer’s grievance procedure and seeking help from a union representative where available. AI can assist with organising emails, payslips and other documents into a timeline, but its interpretation of employment law should be checked carefully.
Workers should verify every legal citation, protect personal information and ensure that the final complaint reflects their own account. Most importantly, they must be able to explain and defend every statement submitted in their name.
