Employment Eye – July 2026

When AI writes the application and the grievance

Artificial intelligence (AI) has entered the workplace through two doors, and both appear firmly wedged open. Job applicants are increasingly turning to AI tools to write their CVs, cover letters and applications, while employees are relying on the same tool to compose workplace grievances. Both trends present employers with distinct, but related challenges around authenticity, legal risk and appropriate response. This article outlines what employers need to know, and what steps they should consider taking.

AI-written job applications and recruitment

A survey by Kahoot! found that 65% of graduates now use AI tools to assist with job applications, up sharply from the 39% reported in the 2025 Early Careers Survey. The appeal is largely one of efficiency, allowing applicants to apply for multiple roles in a competitive job market.

Employers have responded in kind. Facing rising volumes, many now use AI tools to screen CVs, score assessments and conduct video interviews. A 2025 Institute of Student Employers survey found that 62% of employers expect to incorporate AI into recruitment, pointing to a marked shift in how hiring decisions are made.

Challenges for employers

Although using AI to apply for a job is lawful, it carries risk that employers should not overlook. AI-generated applications can contain hallucinated information, overstated experience and generic, templated language that fails to reflect the applicant’s true capabilities, meaning that a polished submission may not accurately represent the candidate behind it. Recruiters should therefore approach AI-assisted applications with a degree of scrutiny, using interviews and skills-based assessments to verify their substance.

Employers using AI during recruitment should be alert to the risk of discriminatory outcomes, which can arise where a tool is trained on datasets that do not represent a diverse range of individuals, such as women, ethnic minorities and disabled people. This was the case when Amazon discontinued use of an AI screening tool in 2018 after it was found to favour male applicants, having been predominantly trained on male CVs, causing it to recognise patterns associated with male applicants, and subsequently penalising phrases like “women’s chess club captain”. Any AI used in recruitment should be regularly audited for its impact on equality, with appropriate human oversight maintained throughout.

Data protection concerns can also arise where AI tools collect or retain more applicant data than necessary, particularly if provided by third-party vendors processing or storing data outside the UK or EEA. Employers should be transparent with applicants about how their data is processed, including AI’s role in that process, and maintain meaningful human oversight at key stages to avoid purely automated decision-making.

AI-written grievances

Employees’ use of AI to draft workplace grievances and Employment Tribunal claims have become commonplace, and growing evidence suggest this trend is driving an increase in the volumes of grievances raised. Employers should note that a grievance does not lose its validity simply because AI assisted in its preparation, and must be treated with the same seriousness and afforded the same procedural fairness as any other complaint.

That said, AI-generated grievances can present particular challenges for employers. What was once a relatively straightforward one-page email setting out a single concern has, in many cases, become a lengthy and legally framed document raising multiple allegations, some of which might never have featured if the employee has written the grievance unaided. Although such grievances can appear compelling, well-researched and persuasive, they often contain inaccuracies, embellishments or matters that do not genuinely reflect the employee's concerns. Their length and legalistic tone can also make it harder for employers to identify the core issues requiring investigation.

For these reasons, employers are encouraged to arrange to meet with the employee in the early stages. Such a meeting provides a valuable opportunity to clarify the substance of the complaint, distinguish genuine concerns from extraneous or embellished allegations, and agree the scope of the issues to be investigated. Taking this proactive step can lead to a more efficient and proportionate resolution process, reduce the risk of straightforward matters escalating unnecessarily, and help to achieve a focussed and resource-efficient investigation.

Employers should also be alert to the confidentiality risks that arise when employees use AI tools. In drafting their grievance, an employee may input sensitive information into a third-party AI platform, including confidential business information, details about colleagues or internal processes, without appreciating that doing so may breach their contractual confidentiality obligations or give rise to data protection concerns. These situations should be handled carefully to avoid any perception of victimisation for raising the grievance.

Top 10 practical tips

1. Do not dismiss a grievance because it is AI-generated.
2. Acknowledge the grievance promptly and log it under the normal grievance procedure. Early acknowledgement manages employee expectations.
3. Arrange an early clarification meeting with the employee before scoping the investigation. Frame this as a fact-finding conversation rather than a formal investigation meeting, and confirm outcomes in writing to avoid later disputes about what was discussed or agreed.
4. Ask the employee to confirm or narrow the specific allegations in their own words.
5. If applicable, cross-check factual assertions in the grievance against available records before broadening the investigation.
6. Scope the investigation to the substantiated and genuinely raised issues, not the AI-drafted document as a whole. Investigating every allegation in a lengthy AI-assisted grievance, including ones the employee does not really press, is disproportionate and can prolong resolution unnecessarily.
7. Train investigating managers on how to approach AI-assisted grievances.
8. Review and update grievance policies to reflect this practice. Consider adding that the employer may hold a clarification meeting to scope the complaint before a full investigation begins.
9. Keep a clear audit trail throughout the process.
10. Monitor trends across grievances to inform wider workforce or policy issues.

Employment law 2025 - 2026 – keeping you and your organisation up to date

There have been a number of notable developments since May’s edition of Employment Eye - below is a short recap on some of those developments.

21 May 2026 - Draft Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations

The EHRC’s draft Code of Practice was published, and once in force it will have significant implications for organisations providing services or exercising public functions.

21 May 2026 – The Government announced an overhaul of the fit note system

The Department for Work and Pensions and Department of Health and Social Care published the results of a call for evidence on fit notes, and announced the launch of four pilots in different areas of England.

2 June 2026 – Employment Rights Act 2025: zero hours and low hour contract reforms

The Government launched its consultation on the detailed regulations that will bring the zero hours contracts measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 to life. The consultation closes on 25 August 2026.

12 June 2026 – Employment rights for unpaid carers and parents of seriously ill children

The Department for Business and Trade published a consultation seeking views on employment rights for unpaid carers and parents of seriously ill children The consultation closes on 1 September 2026.

15 June 2026 - XX v YY

The EAT held that an employment tribunal was wrong to treat pressure or duress as irrelevant when assessing whether an employee's conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract.

16 June 2026 - Cunningham v British Broadcasting Corporation

The EAT held that an employment tribunal was wrong on an employer's knowledge of disability and its approach to reasonable adjustments, upholding the Claimant's appeal on two grounds: first, that the BBC knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the Claimant's disability, having been told in March 2023 that she had type 2 diabetes causing fatigue; and second, that the tribunal had not properly assessed the disadvantage caused by her shift pattern.

23 June 2026 – Employment Rights Act 2025: electronic and workplace balloting

The Department for Business and Trade published its response to the consultation on the draft Code of Practice for electronic and workplace balloting for statutory trade union ballots. It also published a revised draft code.

23 June 2026 – Employment Rights Act 2025: protection from detriments for taking industrial action

The Government published the response to its consultation on the scope of the prohibition on detriment for taking protected industrial action.

30 June 2026 – Employment Rights Act 2025: Fair Work Agency

The Government has published a consultation on how the FWA will approach statutory holiday pay compliance and enforcement. The consultation closes on 22 September 2026.

8 July 2026 – Make Work Pay: workplace monitoring technologies

The Government has published a consultation on proposals to support the fair, transparent and responsible use of workplace monitoring technologies.

If you would like further information on any of the topics discussed in this article, please contact a member of the Employment, Pensions and Immigration department who will be happy to help. Please also visit our Employment Rights Hub , a dedicated space offering tools, guidance, and updates as the reforms develop and the final detail is confirmed.

Stay connected to insight that guides decisions — follow our LinkedIn page.