AI is changing the way workplace disputes are prepared, and the Fair Work Commission is responding.
From 20 October 2026, new requirements will apply across Fair Work Commission matters where generative AI, such as ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini, has been used to create, write, edit or otherwise prepare a document.
What are the new requirements?
If generative AI has been used to prepare an application, submission, witness statement or other document, the person submitting it must:
- Disclose that AI was used and explain how it was used.
- Check the document to make sure the information is accurate, relevant and supported by real evidence and legal authorities.
- State in the document that those checks have been completed.
For witness statements and declarations, there is an additional requirement: the person must ensure the document is based on their own knowledge, reflects their own words and is true to the best of their knowledge.
From 20 October, some Fair Work Commission forms will specifically ask whether AI was used. If the form doesn’t contain the question, AI use should instead be disclosed in a note at the beginning of the document.
Why is Fair Work doing this?
AI can create an impressive-looking workplace complaint or response very quickly.
The problem is that it can also get things wrong.
The Commission warns that AI-generated material can contain incorrect facts, fake legal cases, misleading information or outdated law.
Importantly, the person submitting the document remains responsible for making sure the information is correct.
Failing to meet the requirements can have serious consequences. A document could be given less weight or disregarded, costs could potentially be ordered, or an application or case could be dismissed.
This is where professional review matters
The requirement to “check” AI-generated information sounds simple.
In practice, checking that a case exists is very different from understanding whether that case actually applies to your circumstances.
The same goes for awards, legislation, classifications, employment contracts and workplace obligations. Something can be factually real but completely irrelevant to the situation in front of you.
That’s why AI-generated HR information shouldn’t simply be accepted because it sounds convincing.
If you’re relying on AI to help with a workplace complaint, disciplinary matter, termination, employee entitlement or Fair Work response, having the information reviewed by an appropriately qualified HR or legal professional can help ensure you’re not acting on something that has been misunderstood or incorrectly applied.
The Fair Work Commission itself makes clear that generative AI is not a substitute for legal advice.
The takeaway for employers
AI isn’t going away, and it can be an incredibly useful tool.
Employees may use it to help prepare complaints and applications. Employers may use it to understand those complaints or draft their responses.
The important thing is knowing where AI’s role should end.
Use it to research. Use it to organise. Use it to draft.
But when the information could influence an employment decision or form part of a Fair Work matter, get it professionally checked before you rely on it.
Because from 20 October, Fair Work isn’t just asking whether you used AI.
They’re also asking whether you checked it.