This article examines the relevant guidance in the area and provides practical guidance to employers grappling with the increased use of AI by employees.

Employee Use of AI 

It is becoming increasingly common for employees who raise a grievance or complaint under an internal Company policy to use AI to draft the initial complaint as well as responses to correspondence from the employer in relation to same. We are also seeing a significant increase in the number of WRC Complaint Forms crossing our desks being drafted using AI. This trend continues as WRC proceedings progress, with Complainants using AI to prepare Written Submissions to the WRC.  

It most circumstances, the use of AI is readily identifiable from the manner in which the complaint, correspondence or submission is drafted. It adds complexity and sometimes delay to the internal process in question as AI often produces lengthy outputs and events are not detailed in chronological order which increases the time it takes to review and consider internal complaints and more formal WRC complaints and submissions.

In our experience, unrepresented employees are using AI in their WRC complaints and submissions to the greatest extent and employers who receive a Complaint Form from an employee who is not legally represented should be live to the use of AI within same. AI often broadens the scope of a complaint and seeks to bring in other employment legislation that has not been selected as a claim heading. It can also list headings of claim that the WRC does not have the statutory remit to consider or make an order in relation to, for example damages for stress or worry.

In some cases, it appears as though employees are not proofreading the AI generated content as we see some complaints containing AI prompts to the employee, for example suggesting supporting evidence to be included in the complaint, and these items are not picked up on/edited by the employee prior to submitting the document.

WRC & Labour Court Guidance and Decisions 

The WRC has issued guidance on the use of AI and has been critical of the use of AI by employees in cases before it.

In October 2025, the WRC published Guidance on the use of AI. The WRC confirmed each party must take full responsibility for the content of submissions even where AI is used to help prepare them. Interestingly, the WRC Guidance does not require a party to disclose their use of AI, rather it provides for an optional disclosure of AI use. Where a party is citing a case that is not on the “list of frequently cited authorities in WRC jurisprudence”, copies of the decision or hyperlinks to same must be provided. The guidance note confirms the consequences of misuse of AI can undermine arguments, delay the hearing of a case, require a party to make corrections or clarifications and can go to the credibility of the user.

The Labour Court has also issued AI Guidance which, similarly to the WRC, does not require the disclosure of the use of AI. The guidance states “If AI is used in the preparation of any document/submission to the Court, the party may wish to reference its use.”

In the recent case of Ferko v. Beyond Reach Limited t/a Car Wash Crew, ADJ-00060622 the Adjudication Officer preferred the evidence of the Respondent in circumstances where the Complainant accepted the complaint form submitted to the WRC was prepared by his sister and generated using artificial intelligence and that he had not fully reviewed or verified the contents prior to submission. As such, he was unable to clearly explain aspects of the complaint advanced in his own name and “this materially reduced the weight that could be attached to the Complainant’s evidence.”  The WRC confirmed that assistance in preparing complaints is not improper, but the Complainant remains responsible for the accuracy of allegations made on his behalf.

In Maclou v. Virtuoso Learning Limited, (decision not published, see Irish Times Article) in which RDJ acted on behalf of the Respondent, the unrepresented Complainant used AI to prepare her written submissions to the WRC and submitted a large volume of documents over 15 weeks regarding her employment dispute. The Adjudication Officer noted that the Complainant had almost swamped the file with information at hearing, the Complainant admitted using “AI assistance” to prepare. The Respondent submitted that some of the caselaw cited were misquoted, and other caselaw not able to be found and seemed to be AI hallucinations. The Adjudication Officer confirmed that if a party is looking to caselaw to back up a point, the burden is on that party and noting it is not fair on the other side to send them off on a wild goose chase for cases that don’t exist. The Complainant was asked to re-edit her submission and the matter was adjourned.

These cases show that the WRC is live to the use of AI in complaint forms and submissions and is not shy in holding Complainants to account for the documentation they submit. While the WRC take care in ensuring unrepresented Complainants are afforded a fair opportunity to advance their complaint without the benefit of legal advice, employers can take some assurance that the WRC will hold Complainants’ feet to the fire when it comes to unchecked AI-generated content.

Court of Appeal Guidance  

The Court of Appeal judgment in Guerin v. O’Doherty, [2026] IECA 48 delivered on 26 March last provides commentary on the use of AI by parties to proceedings. The Appellant, Gemma O’Doherty, used AI to prepare her written submissions. Mr Justice Costello outlined that the submissions included references to authorities that did not exist, the Appellant did not verify the authorities relied on, nor did she notify the Respondent’s solicitors that she prepared her submission using AI. The Respondent’s counsel confirmed this added to their work and legal costs as they fruitlessly attempted to locate the hallucinated authorities.

Costello J made a clear statement that “[p]arties, whether represented or not, have an obligation not to mislead the court, which includes the obligation not to rely upon or advance submissions based upon “fake” authorities or propositions which have no basis in law.” Costello J set out principles of general application regarding the use of AI in litigation:

• Parties are entitled to use AI to assist in carrying out research in respect of their case provided that they do so responsibly and do not, even inadvertently, mislead the court by advancing propositions or relying upon supposed authorities which in fact have no foundation at all and are simply hallucinations.  
   
  
• In all cases where they do so, they should expressly inform both the other parties and the court of their use of AI in this regard.  
   
  
• A self-represented party is responsible for the ultimate written or oral work in their case just as much as the lawyers representing parties are.  
   
  
• It is important therefore that any party who uses AI as part of their research independently verifies the accuracy of their submissions and the authorities cited as supposedly establishing the propositions advanced.  
   
  
• No authority should be cited by a party who has not actually verified that it is a genuine judgment of the court and that it is – or at least arguably is - authority for the proposition contended for.

Costello J confirmed it is not acceptable for parties to provide unverified authorities or propositions as it leads to completely wasted time and costs and casts an unfair burden on the opposing party. He went further and outlined it “potentially brings the administration of justice into disrepute and may result in misleading the court.”

Commentary 

The HR and legal landscape is ever evolving and AI is requiring us all to adapt our processes and indeed the WRC and the Courts are addressing the realities of AI use by putting guidelines in place. The use of AI is no longer a novel or peripheral issue and is a feature in many documents, complaints and submissions crossing our desks. Interestingly, the WRC and Labour Court provide for optional disclosure of AI use whereas the Court of Appeal guidance, arguably of a higher authority, requires the disclosure of AI use to both the other side and to the court.

Employers who take proactive steps, by updating their policies and training their HR teams to identify AI generated content, will be best placed to navigate the challenges posed by the increasing prevalence of AI in the workplace and in employment related litigation.