AI-written grievances are now part of everyday HR, and the fix isn't to ban them. It's to update your grievance policy so you get to the real issue faster: a sensible length guide, and a short conversation where the employee tells you in their own words what happened.
If you've opened a grievance recently and thought "this doesn't sound like them", you're not alone. A one-line complaint about a rota change arrives as eight pages, quoting legislation and case law, copying in half the management team and ending with a warning about an employment tribunal.
The numbers back this up. WorkNest's July 2026 survey of more than 900 HR professionals and business leaders found 70% had seen a rise in suspected AI-assisted grievances. Moorepay reports that around 60% of UK businesses believe they've received an AI-generated grievance.
For small businesses without an HR team, that's a real problem. Hours go into unpicking a document that may contain wrong law, invented quotes and issues the employee never actually raised, while the genuine concern underneath gets buried.
Tribunals are pushing back
Employment tribunals have started saying out loud what HR has been thinking: long, AI-padded documents don't help anyone get to the truth.
In CX v Secretary of State for Justice, Employment Judge Annand refused a reconsideration application and commented that the claimant's submissions appeared AI-generated, being lengthy, repetitive and hard to follow in places. The judge's message was that tribunals are helped far more by concise submissions written in the party's own words. (Backhouse Jones summary, August 2026)
Two things are worth noticing:
- The tribunal didn't criticise using AI itself. It criticised documents that bury the real issues. That's the line your policy should take too.
- "In their own words" is now the standard to aim for. If that's what a judge wants to see, it's a sensible thing to build into your internal process.
Acas is also looking at this. Its July 2026 consultation on a revised Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures asks whether AI use in these processes should be covered in the Code or its guidance (Mayer Brown, September 2026). Watch this space: the rules may change, and your policy should be easy to update when they do.
Why AI grievances are hard to handle
The trouble isn't that an employee used a tool to help them write. It's what the tool tends to add. Common signs include:
- Length out of proportion to the issue. One incident, ten pages, appendices and cross-references.
- Legal language the employee wouldn't use. "The Claimant reserves all rights" in an internal complaint about holiday approval.
- Wrong or invented law. Misquoted legislation, cases that don't say what's claimed, or cases that don't exist.
- Allegations that weren't really raised. AI often "spots" discrimination or whistleblowing angles the employee never mentioned, and pulls in extra managers as named parties.
- Quotes that aren't in your documents. Policy wording or emails that don't match what you actually hold.
Each of these costs time. Worse, the employee may later find they can't row back from something the AI wrote in their name, which hardens positions and makes a fair resolution harder to reach.
What you still must do
How a grievance was written doesn't change your duty to deal with it properly. Before you change anything, keep these guardrails in mind:
- The Acas Code still applies. If a tribunal finds you unreasonably failed to follow it, compensation can be increased by up to 25% (Osbourne Pinner).
- Never reject a grievance because it "looks like AI". There may be a genuine complaint inside it. Investigate the facts, not the drafting style.
- Think about reasonable adjustments. For someone with dyslexia, a learning disability, anxiety or English as a second language, AI may be how they find their voice. A rigid rule could put you on the wrong side of the Equality Act 2010.
- Don't treat AI use as misconduct on its own. The exception is where someone pastes confidential business information or colleagues' personal data into a public AI tool. That's a data protection issue, and your AI or IT policy should say so.
- Take advice on serious allegations. Discrimination, harassment or whistleblowing claims need careful handling however they're written.
With that in mind, here are the two changes I'd recommend.
Change 1: Set a word count guide
Ask for written grievances of no more than 1,000 words (roughly two sides of A4), opening with a short summary of the main points. It nudges people towards the issues that matter and gives your investigating manager a clear starting point.
The key word is guide, not ban. To keep it fair and lawful:
- Never refuse a grievance for being too long. If it runs over, accept it and ask the employee to add a short summary (around 150 words) of their main concerns and the outcome they want.
- Ask for a clear list of issues. "What happened, when, who was involved, and what would put it right?" is far more useful than a legal essay.
- Allow evidence separately. Emails, photos or rotas can be attached and don't count towards the word limit.
- Build in flexibility. Make it clear the limit can be relaxed as a reasonable adjustment, or where the complaint is genuinely complex.
1,000 words is my suggested starting point for small businesses. You can set it lower or higher, as long as the policy explains why and stays flexible.
Change 2: Add a clarification meeting before the hearing
Add a short, informal conversation where the employee explains their grievance in their own words before the formal hearing. It mirrors exactly what the tribunal in CX said it wanted, and it's often where the real issue finally surfaces.
How to run it:
- Hold it within 5 working days of receiving the grievance, so it doesn't delay the process.
- Keep it to around 30 minutes. It's a listening meeting, not an investigation.
- Ask open questions: What happened? When? Who was involved? How has it affected you? What outcome are you hoping for?
- Agree a short list of issues together, in plain English, and send it to the employee to confirm. This becomes the focus of the hearing.
- Check for anything in the written grievance they don't want to pursue. It's a safe moment to drop points the AI added that they never meant.
Guardrails:
- It isn't a test. Never use it to catch someone out or question whether they wrote the grievance themselves.
- Offer a companion. The statutory right to be accompanied applies to the formal hearing, but offering it here too avoids any argument that this was a hearing in disguise.
- It's encouraged, not a gateway. If the employee declines, move straight on to the formal hearing. Don't let it become a reason to delay.
- Make adjustments. Offer a different format, extra time, or a written alternative if that works better for the person.
Sample policy wording
Here's wording you can adapt for your grievance policy. Check it fits the rest of your procedure before you use it.
Raising a formal grievance in writing
Please set out your grievance in writing, ideally in no more than 1,000 words. Start with a short summary of your main concerns and the outcome you would like. Please include what happened, when, and who was involved. You can attach supporting documents separately; these do not count towards the word guide.
If your grievance is longer, we will still accept it. We may ask you for a short summary of the key points so we can make sure we focus on what matters most to you.
You may use tools, including AI tools, to help you write your grievance. Please check that everything in it is accurate and reflects your own concerns. Please do not enter confidential company information or other people's personal data into public AI tools.
If you need support or an adjustment to raise your grievance, for example because of a disability, please let us know.
Clarification meeting
Within 5 working days of receiving your grievance, we will invite you to a short, informal clarification meeting. This is your chance to explain your grievance in your own words and agree the main issues to be considered. It is not a disciplinary or decision-making meeting. You may bring a work colleague or trade union representative.
After the meeting we will send you a summary of the agreed issues to confirm. If you would prefer not to attend, the grievance will move to the formal hearing stage.The bottom line
AI isn't going away, and neither are grievances. A clear word guide and a five-day clarification meeting help you hear the person behind the document, deal with the real issue, and show a tribunal you ran a fair process.
If you'd like your grievance policy reviewed or updated with this wording, or you're facing an AI-drafted grievance right now, get in touch. It's just me, no long contracts, and I'm available evenings and weekends when you need me.
HR PPL — People. Process. Protection. www.hrppl.co.uk · natasha@hrppl.co.uk
This blog is general guidance, not legal advice. Take advice on your specific situation.
