AI-Generated Complaint Leads to Dismissal of Workplace Dispute in Ireland

A former car wash employee in Ireland has lost a case before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) after admitting that his complaint was drafted using artificial intelligence (AI). The case highlights the increasing challenges and considerations surrounding the use of AI in legal proceedings and the importance of complainants understanding and verifying the details of claims made on their behalf.

The Case of Imrich Ferko vs. Beyond Reach Limited

Imrich Ferko brought a complaint against his former employer, Beyond Reach Limited, trading as Car Wash Crew, under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. He alleged he did not receive written terms of employment when he began working in July 2024, and that a written contract was only provided a year later, in July 2025. Mr. Ferko’s employment ended on July 25, 2025, and he subsequently referred his complaint to the WRC on the same date.

Conflicting Evidence and the Role of AI

Beyond Reach Limited disputed Mr. Ferko’s claims, stating that he was provided with written terms and conditions of employment as part of the induction process in July 2024, but he did not sign or return the document. WRC Adjudication Officer Christina Ryan determined the case based on conflicting oral evidence.

During the hearing, Mr. Ferko conceded that his complaint form was prepared by his sister and that the narrative within the form was generated using AI. He stated he was not fully familiar with all aspects of the submitted content and could not clearly articulate the precise legal nature of the complaint.

WRC Ruling: Responsibility for Complaint Accuracy

Adjudication Officer Ryan emphasized that while assistance in preparing complaints is not inherently improper, the complainant ultimately remains responsible for the accuracy of the allegations made. She found the respondent’s evidence regarding its induction procedures and the provision of written contracts to be “clear, consistent and credible,” aligning with standard employment practices.

Conversely, the adjudicator stated that Mr. Ferko’s reliance on AI-generated content, without full review or verification, “materially reduced the weight that could be attached to the Complainant’s evidence.” the WRC upheld the respondent’s position and dismissed Mr. Ferko’s complaint.

Implications for Future Cases

This case serves as a cautionary tale regarding the use of AI in preparing legal submissions. While AI tools can be helpful, individuals must ensure they fully understand and can substantiate the claims being made on their behalf. The WRC’s decision underscores the importance of personal accountability for the content of complaints, even when assistance is sought from third parties or AI technologies.

Recent decisions and recommendations from the Workplace Relations Commission can be found on their website: Workplace Relations Commission Decisions & Recommendations.