Latest News

The impact of Generative AI on the Fair Work Commission

Written by Gadens | 23 June 2026

Generative AI is quickly becoming the new normal for the Fair Work Commission, prompting the Commission’s President, Justice Hatcher, to publish a statement and an exposure draft of the proposed Guidance Note Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Commission cases. This follows growing concerns that the Commission is experiencing an unprecedented increase in workload, driven by applicants using AI tools to prepare claims.

Significantly, the Commission received 44,075 lodgements in 2024/25, compared to just over 30,000 per year prior to 2023, with projections between 50,000 and 55,000 for 2025/26. Growth is concentrated in general protections and unfair dismissal claims, many with little merit, and is understood to be principally driven by applicants using AI tools.

 

AI tools can provide applicants with a false sense of understanding of the merits of their case, leading to claims being lodged with little to no legal basis. These tools may generate made-up cases or hallucinate legislation, misinterpret the law, and produce repetitive or incoherent submissions. As a result, applicants may pursue time-consuming and costly claims with little prospect of success. This was seen in Reece Hoverd v M & J D Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1013, where the applicant relied on provisions that "did not exist as the basis for his argument" and their application was dismissed.

 

Impact on the Commission

 

The impact on the Commission extends beyond increased volume. AI-assisted drafting has made it easier to generate expansive narratives and extensive material, requiring employers and their lawyers to spend significantly more time reviewing and responding to submissions that are often repetitive or legally misconceived. This has lengthened proceedings and contributed to the Commission issuing decisions within 12 weeks in only 85% of cases. Increased lodgements also impact the Commission's ability to deal with major cases and facilitate enterprise bargaining, potentially leaving both workers and employers worse off.

 

Response and implications

 

In response, the proposed Guidance Note requires disclosure of AI use, confirmation that documents have been checked for accuracy, and that witness statements are based on the author's own knowledge. Lawyers must also include hyperlinks to case law cited to ensure accountability.

 

While these requirements are a necessary first step, they address the quality of submissions rather than the volume. Whether they are a sufficient step is the question the Commission, and the government, will need to confront sooner than they might expect.

A detailed article on these and other similar changes can be accessed here.