Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming workplaces globally, presenting both opportunities and challenges for employers and employees alike. The recent Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) decision from October 2025 in Oliveira v Ryanair DAC provides a timely lens through which to examine the practical and legal consequences of the increasing use of AI in an employment context, and in particular, in employment disputes. This article explores two emerging topics:

• The increasing frequency with which employers are receiving grievances generated in full or in part by AI, and the significant challenges these present for employers; and
• The opportunities and risks associated with the use by employers of AI in the workplace.

Oliveira v Ryanair DAC

The Complainant, who worked as a member of cabin crew, claimed he had been subjected to discrimination, harassment and victimisation by Ryanair. Ryanair denied all allegations and submitted that Mr Oliveira’s complaint was frivolous, vexatious, and bound to fail.

During the hearing, concerns were raised on behalf of Ryanair that the Complainant’s written submissions appeared to have been generated with the assistance of AI.  In particular, certain decisions and citations referenced by Mr Oliveira, who represented himself before the WRC, either did not appear to exist at all, or were at odds with the outcome described by Mr Oliveira in his submissions. Initially, Mr Oliveira argued that this was baseless insinuation, and an attack by Ryanair designed to distract and/or detract from the merits of his complaint. However, Mr Oliveira subsequently acknowledged that he had used AI to prepare his submissions to the WRC.

While the Adjudication Officer commented that she was not particularly concerned with the use of AI per se, it was emphasised that parties making submissions to the WRC have an obligation to ensure their submissions are relevant, accurate, and do not mislead either the other party or the Adjudication Officer.

Ultimately, the Adjudication Officer concluded that Mr Oliveira’s submissions contained numerous misquoted, irrelevant, or non-existent legal citations, which resulted in wasted time and confusion during the hearing.  The Adjudication Officer described the attempts to rely on phantom citations and to introduce new allegations late in the process as egregious and an abuse of process.

In relation to the underlying merits of Mr Oliveira’s complaint, the Adjudication Officer dismissed all elements of the complaint, finding that he had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of race or family status, or to provide cogent evidence of victimisation, harassment, or sexual harassment.

The rise of AI-generated grievance documentation and the challenges they present for employers

AI generated complaints can, if not reviewed carefully, obscure the underlying workplace issues, making it more difficult for employers to identify core concerns and achieve a meaningful resolution with employees.  This can lead to disputes becoming prolonged and escalated, increasing the operational burden on organisations.

Complaints generated using AI can be particularly voluminous, which can result in employers having to dedicate substantial time and resources to reviewing and investigating them.  On 30 October 2025, the WRC published guidance on the use of AI to prepare material for submission to the WRC (the “Guidance”).  The Guidance, coupled with the decision in Oliveira, makes the WRC’s position, and expectations, clear: regardless of whether AI is used, parties must ensure submissions are accurate, relevant, and not misleading; and while AI tools may assist in clarifying concepts, they are not a substitute for legal advice. 

Employers should remain vigilant to the possibility that complaints or grievances submitted by employees may be generated by or prepared with the use of AI.  It is important to scrutinise all complaints carefully, to ensure that decisions are based on accurate, rather than on misleading or incomplete, information.  Where concerns arise about the accuracy or reliability of a complaint, employers are advised to seek clarification from complainants and, if necessary, request the complainant to confirm the factual accuracy of their complaint.  This approach helps ensure that workplace issues can be addressed on an informed basis.

The Oliveira case exemplifies how phantom citations and late-stage allegations can waste hearing time and complicate proceedings.  The misuse of AI (including its unchecked use) has the potential to undermine credibility, prolong hearings, and, in extreme cases, can distort the underlying fact patten presented to the employer and/or the WRC.

Employers’ use of AI: The opportunities and risks

The integration of AI into the workplace can unlock significant benefits, enhancing overall efficiency, streamlining processes, and fostering innovation. 

Research suggests that generative AI could lead to a €40-45 billion boost in the size of Ireland’s economy over the next decade.

AI has the potential to benefit organisations in a number of ways, including:

• Efficiency and productivity: The use of AI allows employees to dedicate their resources to other tasks, thereby increasing productivity.  Provided the output is reviewed, AI can be used to automate repetitive tasks, allowing employees to focus on bespoke tasks.

• Enhanced customer experience: AI can facilitate timely and efficient customer interactions.  For instance, many online retailers use AI-powered chatbots to provide real time responses to customers prior to escalating queries to human agents.  This ensures customers receive prompt assistance, improving overall customer engagement and satisfaction.

• Improved decision making: AI can support – but not replace – human decision-making, by providing data-driven insights and recommendations.  However, it is crucial to maintain human oversight to ensure accountability within the decision-making process.  AI serves as a valuable tool, but human judgement and ownership remain indispensable.

• Reduced human error: Human error can often occur when carrying out mundane and repetitive tasks, as a result of fatigue or oversight.  AI seeks to reduce human error by automating these tasks.  However, human appraisal and verification remain an essential part of the use of AI within the workplace.

• Improved job satisfaction and morale: The automation of repetitive and mundane tasks can improve employees’ job satisfaction and morale.  This in turn can have a positive effect on employee’s productivity, potentially resulting in more efficient and cost-effective business operations.

However, the integration of AI in the workplace, while offering numerous benefits, also presents potential dangers that should be carefully considered.  Addressing these challenges is crucial to ensuring the ethical and legal use of AI in the workplace.

• Bias and discrimination: AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate biases present in their training data, leading to discriminatory practices in hiring, promotions, and other HR decisions. Bias occurs when an AI model favours one particular cohort of people over another, typically as a result of a characteristic an individual has or does not have.  When an AI system is tainted with bias, it is notoriously difficult for the machine to “unlearn” this behaviour. The EU AI Act (the “AI Act”) is the world’s first comprehensive legal framework for artificial intelligence, establishing harmonised rules for the development, deployment, and use of AI systems within the European Union. The AI Act specifically provides for bias detection, mandating that deployers of AI systems ensure the model is rigorously tested and validated before its release. Deployers are effectively any individuals or organisations who apply AI systems in their professional operations, even if they didn’t develop the AI system themselves. A biased AI system can be particularly harmful if used during the recruitment process within an organisation.  Existing legal frameworks such as the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2021, which applies to employees as well as to job applicants, remain applicable.  Employers should be cognisant of the fact that an employee is entitled to be protected against discrimination in all circumstances, regardless of whether a particular decision was made by a human or a machine.

• Privacy Concerns: Privacy is a material issue for employers rolling out AI within their organisation.  AI systems often require extensive data collection, which has the potential to infringe on employees’ personal information. During the model training phase, an AI system needs a vast amount of data to ensure the model is free from bias.  From a regulatory perspective, competing interests therefore exist between the protection of data subjects’ (including employees’) rights conferred under the GDPR, and the debiasing of AI systems.

• Accountability / Automated Decision Making: Although AI can be used to complement the decision-making process, the reliance on AI for decision-making can result in a lack of transparency and accountability within an organisation.  This results in difficulties in challenging or understanding decisions.  It is crucial for organisations to establish clear guidelines and accountability mechanisms to ensure that employees remain responsible for the outcomes of AI-assisted decisions.

• Disruption of work: The automation of tasks may lead to job displacement, creating economic and social challenges for affected workers.  According to Ireland’s National AI Strategy, the rapid evolution of AI means it is premature to predict the impact of AI on the labour market.  Research suggests that approximately one-third of jobs in Ireland could be affected in one way or another by AI, as positions currently occupied by humans may be enhanced or replaced by AI systems.

Conclusion

The Oliveira  decision is a useful and timely reminder that while the WRC acknowledges that AI usage is now widespread and has extended into the sphere of employment disputes, all parties, even litigants in person, are expected to ensure that all material submitted by them to the WRC in relation to a complaint is accurate, substantiated, and relevant. The use of AI does not absolve parties from their responsibility to present credible evidence and proper legal citations.  This principle is reinforced by the Guidance, which underscores the importance of vigilance, accuracy, and responsibility when utilising AI in the context of employment disputes. Employers should:

• be alert to, and prepared for, the unique challenges posed by AI-generated grievances;

• ensure that their own use of AI is ethical, transparent and compliant with the requirements of the AI Act; and

• continue to refer to the Guidance, the AI Act, and other relevant sources as the AI landscape continues to evolve.

Employers should develop and regularly review internal AI policies, ensure robust staff training, and maintain clear oversight of AI-driven decisions to mitigate legal and reputational risks.  As AI continues to reshape the workplace, employers must remain proactive, informed, and committed to best practice, ensuring that technology enhances the workplace while minimising the associated risks.

The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and is not legal or other advice.

The authors would like to thank Jennifer Floyd and Aoife Hanway for their contributions to the briefing.