What you need to know about the use of AI in disciplinary cases

Whether you think it is a good or bad thing, AI (Artificial Intelligence) is changing the way we live and work, and its routine use in disciplinary cases deserves a much closer look.

The disciplinary process can be a legal minefield for employers and career‑threatening, even career‑ending, for employees.

In such situations, both parties will inevitably want the best possible advice, support and knowledge to safeguard their interests.

This is why AI now seems to have become a go‑to tool in disciplinary cases because it can analyse large amounts of information, highlight key issues, and help both employers and employees prepare arguments more efficiently.

When dealing with workplace disciplinary matters, the technology is quick and can save time, reduce costs, and provide clear, structured insights on the key issues.

But as with many things in life that seem too good to be true, there can be a catch if AI is used incorrectly.

Depending on what you read, watch, or listen to, the idea that AI results require no human input and can fully replace human judgment is misleading, particularly in disciplinary cases.

Recently, the boss of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, told the BBC that people should not “blindly trust” everything AI tools say.

He explained that AI models are “prone to errors” and urged people to use them alongside other resources, emphasising the importance of a rich information ecosystem rather than relying solely on AI technology.

And earlier this year it was reported that the high court told senior lawyers to take urgent action to prevent the misuse of AI after dozens of fake case-law citations were put before the courts that were either completely fictitious or contained made-up passages.

Lawyers were said to be increasingly turning to AI to support legal arguments, but highlighted cases exposed serious risks. In one £89m damages claim against a bank, the claimants submitted 45 case-law citations, 18 of which were found to be fictitious, with many others containing bogus quotes. The claimant admitted using publicly available AI tools, and his solicitor acknowledged citing fabricated authorities.

It clearly highlights the work-related dangers of relying too heavily on AI in any circumstances without proper verification, even in one of the most respected professions.

Here we take a look at what AI in disciplinary cases really means, whether it is legal, the pros and cons, and why the support of an experienced representative is still the best option for employees.

AI in disciplinary cases

In summary the software can scan, analyse and interpret the evidence and suggest how either the employer or employee can best use that information to support their perspective.

For example, the employer could use it to identify the best available and gathered evidence to support any allegation. While the employee could utilise it to highlight weaknesses in the case against them and to provide a response to any allegation.

Typically you would type in and instruct AI what you want it to do.  It then processes the request, scans the data provided, and can generate structured insights or draft responses

It is effectively a digital assistant, which can help assess evidence and organise arguments to support either side in a disciplinary case.

Is it legal?

The use of AI in disciplinary cases is legal. Its use does not breach employment law, which requires a disciplinary process to be fair and reasonable, transparent and consistent.

For employers, AI can certainly be used as a tool but it should never be the decision-maker as there is still an expectation a disciplinary hearing chair should decide the outcome.

It is also legal for employees to use the software. However, a warning, they should check the information provided and be careful to avoid repeating any inaccurate information or irrelevant case law reference provided, which can undermine their case.

It is not unheard of for an employee to receive an AI‑generated response that leads them to cite an employment tribunal ruling in support of their case, without realising that the decision was later overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal

Some AI tools include a warning about accuracy with the results provided because they can contain errors, bias, or fabricated information. We suggest that AI can be used to summarise information, but it is not a substitute for the expert human review, especially when employees are trying to defend themselves on allegations.