UK workers are using AI to air their grievances

Employees are turning to generative AI to draft lengthy, ‘lawyerly’ grievances, putting strain on the HR teams asked to triage and respond to them.

Many employers are asking their employees to adopt generative AI tools at work. It isn’t a surprise, therefore, that employees are increasingly using the same tools to draft their grievances.

Although AI tools have the potential (if used in the right way) to help employees organise their thoughts and articulate their concerns with more clarity and structure, their use in this context can also present challenges for employers, says legal firm Lewis Silkin.

Whilst the complaints and issues may not have changed, the firm notes that AI has made some grievances more difficult for HR to deal with and creates additional challenges:

• Volume and structure – Grievances drafted using AI are often extremely lengthy, with the time it will take to digest and review the grievance likely to eclipse how long it took to generate. The content will of course, depend on the quality and clarity of the prompts, but experience indicates that AI-generated grievances can be repetitive and can also lack a clear structure. Following the arguments (or even identifying the issues complained about) can be difficult.

• Complex and legalistic – In the pre-AI world, grievances typically focused on factual allegations that the employer needed to investigate. However, AI can add a layer of complexity by introducing legal arguments at the click of a button. That said, AI tools are notorious for inventing or misapplying case law. Complaints littered with case and statute references may look impressive and seem intimidating at first glance, but there is a chance that these are irrelevant, or even entirely false.

• Reduced realism – AI-generated grievances often contain exaggerated language and broader accusations, lacking the natural restraint of a manually written complaint. Unlike the deliberate process of drafting a grievance by hand, AI can produce large volumes of text that may be copied without close review—leading to strong claims that reflect the tool’s suggestions more than the employee’s actual intent.

• Data risks – If an employee uses a public AI platform to help produce their grievance, there is a risk that they will input sensitive company data or sensitive personal data about colleagues, raising data protection and confidentiality risks. To mitigate this, employers should implement clear policies governing the use of AI and provide all staff with training on responsible usage, including what types of data are appropriate to share.

• Optimistic advice – It’s quite likely that an employee who uses AI to help them write a grievance will also be looking to the tool for legal advice or to gauge their chances at tribunal. However, AI often tells users what they want to hear rather than providing a balanced and accurate assessment, especially when it lacks full context. This means that employees could be getting an overly optimistic view of their prospects of success, a potential barrier to resolution or financial settlement if that is on the cards.

To address this, Lewis Silkin recommends that employers adopt a two-part strategy which focuses on reducing the chance of formal grievances being raised in the first place, and improving their response strategy when one is received.

“In this context, prevention is better than cure; every employer’s priority should be seeking to ensure that employees resolve their issues informally and promptly whenever appropriate,” the firm said.

“Early intervention can often resolve concerns before they develop into formal grievances, and informal resolution is essentially the first option in the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (the ACAS Code).

“It is essential that HR and management build a positive and supportive workplace culture and act effectively when conflicts inevitably arise.”

Now read: Reeves says UK will scrap red tape and use AI to approve building plans