Artificial Intelligence In The Employment Tribunal: What Employers Need to Know

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a futuristic concept. It is already changing the way we work, communicate and manage disputes. In the employment context, AI can help employees draft grievances, appeals, tribunal claims and applications quickly and at low cost. It can assist with recruitment, redundancy exercises, investigations and document management.

Used carefully, AI can improve efficiency and access to justice. Used carelessly, it can create serious issues around accuracy and reliability, while adding to the growing pressure on an already stretched tribunal system.

AI is making legal information more accessible

Many employees and litigants in person now use AI because they cannot afford legal representation or find the legal system difficult to navigate. AI tools can produce documents that look polished and professional, often within minutes. This can help individuals better understand their position and present their concerns more clearly.

However, a well-written document is not the same as a legally accurate one. AI tools may misunderstand the facts, rely on irrelevant arguments or present weak points with too much confidence. Employers should therefore avoid dismissing a complaint simply because it appears to have been produced by AI. The substance still needs to be reviewed carefully.

Interim relief applications are increasing

One area where tribunals are seeing the impact of AI is interim relief. Interim relief is an emergency remedy available only in limited categories of unfair dismissal claims, including certain whistleblowing and trade union dismissal claims. If granted, it can require an employer to reinstate or re-engage the employee, or continue the employment contract with pay, until the final hearing.

The legal threshold is deliberately high. A claimant usually has seven days from the effective date of termination to apply, and they must show good prospects of succeeding at the final hearing. The Presidents of the Employment Tribunals have issued guidance in response to a sharp rise in applications. The guidance notes an increase in applications for interim relief from 20 annually across Great Britain to roughly 20 each month, with most involving protected disclosure claims. It also refers to a significant increase in lengthy supporting documents, with many appearing to have been generated using AI.

For employers, the practical point is speed. Interim relief applications move quickly and can be costly if mishandled. Any employer receiving such an application should take immediate advice, preserve relevant documents and focus on the core legal issues rather than the volume of material submitted.

The problem of “hallucinated” case law

A major risk with GenAI is that it can produce information that sounds convincing but is wrong. In legal proceedings, this can include invented cases, inaccurate summaries of judgments or arguments based on law that does not exist. These are often referred to as “hallucinations”.

The case of Harber v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2023] is a useful warning. A litigant in person relied on nine First-tier Tribunal decisions in support of her appeal against a tax penalty. The cases looked plausible, but neither the tribunal nor HMRC could locate them. The tribunal concluded that they had been generated by an AI system. Although the tribunal accepted that the appellant did not know the cases were not genuine, it emphasised that citing false authorities is a serious matter.

The same principle applies in employment disputes. AI can be helpful as a starting point, but legal authorities, quotations and procedural points must be checked against reliable sources. Employers and advisers should also be alert to documents that cite unfamiliar cases, contain unusually broad legal principles or rely heavily on generic wording.

AI can support access to justice but it does not replace judgment

Recent developments also show the positive side of AI. Garfield AI, an SRA-regulated AI-powered law firm, assisted a freelance HR consultant to recover unpaid fees in a small claims case.

The AI firm assisted with document disclosure, witness statements and trial preparation while a human barrister conducted the advocacy at trial. The instructed advocate recognised that Garfield presented the case “clearly and efficiently” but “the advocacy at trial remained essential and a fundamentally human exercise”.

It goes without saying that advocacy remains a niche skill. While AI may be able to prepare cases, issue court proceedings and undertake general litigation, when it comes to advocacy including cross-examination, responding to witnesses and reading the court room, these are skills picked up over time with experience and based on judgement. AI may take on more document-heavy preparation, but human legal judgment, strategy and advocacy remain essential.

For employment litigation, this means employers may see more claims and applications that are better presented than before, even where the underlying merits are weak. AI may also make it easier for employees to challenge workplace decisions, ask detailed questions or raise formal complaints at an earlier stage.

What should employers do now?

AI is unlikely to reduce employment disputes. Combined with recent and upcoming employment law reforms, it may increase the volume, speed and complexity of workplace complaints and tribunal claims.

Employers should prepare by:

• training managers and HR teams to recognise AI-assisted correspondence without prejudging it
• checking legal citations and quoted authorities carefully
• keeping clear records of workplace decisions and the reasons for them
• responding promptly to grievances, appeals and tribunal documents
• reviewing policies on AI use in recruitment, investigations and employee relations
• seeking early legal advice where an application is urgent, high-risk or document heavy

AI is not going away. It can improve access to information and help parties present their cases more effectively, but it also increases the risk of inaccurate arguments and unnecessary complexity. The safest approach for employers is to treat AI-generated material seriously, verify what matters, and focus on robust, fair and well-documented decision-making.

For more support on how AI is impacting employment law, HR, and Health and Safety, get in touch and speak to one of our legal experts. Additionally, check out our article on how to manage AI generated grievances.