• Replies 16 replies
  • Subscribers 10 subscribers
  • Views 959 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

AI-assisted grievances: What’s your biggest challenge?

Holly Ivins

Hi, I’m Holly, the Reference Content Manager at the CIPD and I’m looking to understand your biggest challenge when it comes to use of AI during grievances and how you are responding to this growing challenge.

1. Which of these is the biggest challenge for your organisation?

  • AI-generated grievances are lengthy, vague or overly formal, making the real issue harder to identify.
  • Long, formal submissions can take more time and resources to manage.
  • Employees struggle to explain or answer questions about their own submission.
  • Submissions may include incorrect or misunderstood legal references.
  • Legalistic language can make a grievance sound more serious from the outset, reducing opportunities for informal resolution.
  • AI can give employees unrealistic expectations or false confidence about the strength of a legal claim.

 

2. Which response do you use—or think you would use—to meet that challenge?

  • Create clearer AI policies and update relevant procedures.
  • Offer more training for managers and HR teams.
  • Have an early human conversation before progressing the grievance.
  • Put a stronger focus on facts and evidence.
  • Handle AI-assisted grievances in the same way as any other grievance.

 

Please let me know your thoughts in the comments. We’d also welcome any thoughts on points we have missed from the lists above. Please add any other challenges you’ve encountered, or other responses that have worked, or you are considering trying, in your organisation.

Parents

  • A couple of practical responses to add to your list:

    1. Put accountability in the grievance policy itself. One line saying the employee owns every statement they submit, however it was drafted, and will be asked to talk it through at the first meeting. That makes the early human conversation the default rather than a favour, and it handles the "can't explain their own letter" problem Jo described.
    2. Add a data line to the AI use policy. An AI-drafted grievance often means colleagues' names, health details or internal emails went into a public chatbot. Say plainly what must never go into an unapproved tool, and apply the same rule to HR: if you use AI to cut a 15-page grievance down to the core issues, use an approved tool and check the summary against the original.

    For managers, a short session built around one anonymised example tends to land better than a long module: find the core issues, ask clarifying questions, and don't dismiss it as "just AI".

Reply

  • A couple of practical responses to add to your list:

    1. Put accountability in the grievance policy itself. One line saying the employee owns every statement they submit, however it was drafted, and will be asked to talk it through at the first meeting. That makes the early human conversation the default rather than a favour, and it handles the "can't explain their own letter" problem Jo described.
    2. Add a data line to the AI use policy. An AI-drafted grievance often means colleagues' names, health details or internal emails went into a public chatbot. Say plainly what must never go into an unapproved tool, and apply the same rule to HR: if you use AI to cut a 15-page grievance down to the core issues, use an approved tool and check the summary against the original.

    For managers, a short session built around one anonymised example tends to land better than a long module: find the core issues, ask clarifying questions, and don't dismiss it as "just AI".

Children