Date Published - 26 May 2026.
1. Purpose of This Guidance
This document is for anyone taking part in a case before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) who uses artificial intelligence (AI) tools to prepare written submissions or evidence.
AI tools can help you organise ideas, improve grammar and draft documents. But they can also produce wrong or misleading information, especially about Irish employment and equality law. This guidance explains how to use these tools responsibly in WRC cases and what risks to watch for.
2. What Are AI Tools?
AI tools include software and online services that can generate text or help with writing, such as:
- ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, etc
- AI writing assistants or grammar tools
- AI-based legal research websites
These tools may help you draft text or explain ideas, but they are not legal advice. Always check that any law you rely on is current and accurate.
3. You Are Responsible for What You Submit
The WRC will treat any submission as yours, even if you used AI to help prepare it.
This means:
- You are fully responsible for the content.
- If legal information is wrong or misleading, it may harm your case.
- You may be asked to explain your submission or clarify parts of it.
An Adjudication Officer recently summarised the WRC’s approach to AI in this way:
“While I’m not particularly concerned about whether the Complainant used AI or not I am clear that parties making submissions to the WRC have an obligation to ensure that their submissions are relevant and accurate and do not set out to mislead either the other party or the Adjudication Officer.”[1]
When dismissing that complaint, the Adjudication Officer criticised the use of citations that were irrelevant, wrongly quoted or, in many cases, did not exist.
The same principle applies more generally. If you use AI for research or drafting, you are still responsible for the final written or spoken material you present. You must not mislead the WRC by relying on incorrect, invented or unverified authorities, quotations or factual claims.
4. Risks of Relying on AI Tools
AI can be useful, but there are risks:
- Wrong legal advice: AI tools are not designed specifically for Irish employment and equality law or WRC procedures.
- Made-up or wrong references: AI tools may invent case law, legislation, quotations or WRC decisions, or may cite sources that do not support the point being made. This is sometimes called “AI hallucination”.
- Overconfidence in AI-generated arguments: AI-written submissions can sound convincing but still be wrong, incomplete, out of date or not suited to the issues the WRC must decide.
- Extra cost and delay: If AI-generated material includes false authorities, wrong quotations or irrelevant material, it can waste hearing time, create extra work for the other party and delay the fair handling of the case.
- Privacy risks: Free online tools may store or reuse personal data or commercially sensitive information that you type into them.
5. Best Practices When Using AI
If you use AI to prepare for a WRC hearing, you should:
- Check all legal content yourself: Make sure every case name, legal reference, quotation and legal principle is real, current, relevant and supports the point you are making.
- Make sure you understand and can explain what you submit: Do not include anything you do not fully understand or could not explain at the hearing. AI can help with drafting, but it cannot take responsibility for your submission.
- Avoid sensitive personal data: Be very careful when using public AI tools. Do not paste in names, PPS numbers, medical information, financial details or commercially sensitive information unless it is necessary and safe to do so.
- Use AI as a tool, not a substitute for your judgement: AI may help with research, structure or drafting, but it cannot decide the merits of your case, choose your legal strategy or predict the likely outcome before the WRC.
6. Optional Disclosure of AI Use
If you use AI to help with research or drafting, you should consider telling the WRC and the other party, especially if AI generated part of your submission. For example, you could include a statement like this:
“Parts of this submission were drafted using an AI writing tool. I have reviewed and confirmed the accuracy of all content.”
Being open about using AI promotes transparency and can help avoid confusion if issues arise about authorities, quotations or how the submission was prepared.
Even if you do not disclose it, you are still responsible for checking that everything you submit is accurate.
7. Consequences of Misuse
If a submission contains wrong or misleading information, whether produced by AI or not, it may:
- Weaken your argument or reduce the weight given to your submission
- Cause delay, waste hearing time or create extra work for the other party and the Adjudication Officer
- Require you to correct, explain or withdraw authorities, quotations or factual claims
- In serious cases, affect how reliable or credible your evidence and submissions are viewed
In the end, the Adjudication Officer decides whether to accept submissions and other material. They will consider whether the material is relevant and can be admitted in your case. As Judge Simons said in the High Court, “an Adjudication Officer is entitled to ensure that a hearing progresses expeditiously by asking parties to confine themselves to the relevant issues”[2].
Material generated with AI that is irrelevant, inaccurate, invented or not independently checked may be given little or no weight and may make it harder to deal with the case fairly and efficiently.
8. Where to Get Reliable Support
The WRC has published a list of authorities most often cited in its proceedings to help you understand Irish employment and equality law. You can find the list here with the full cases available for reference.
If you refer to cases on the WRC’s list, you do not need to provide separate copies with your submission. If you cite cases that are not on the list, please provide copies of the decisions or links to them.
9. Final Note
The WRC encourages the fair, efficient and respectful resolution of workplace disputes and equality claims. AI can support your preparation, but it is not a substitute for understanding your case or the law that applies to it. Please use these tools responsibly, be open about their use where appropriate, and seek reliable advice if needed.
The following guidance explains the rules and procedures at a WRC hearing in more detail: WRC Procedures for All Cases, 2024.
The WRC is committed to ethical, responsible and useful use of AI. As we explore, adopt and use AI technology to support staff and external stakeholders, we will be transparent about it. To show this commitment, parts of this guidance were drafted using AI.
Disclaimer: General Nature of AI Usage Guidance
This document gives general guidance to help lay litigants understand the possible uses and limits of AI tools in the WRC. It is not specialist, technical or expert advice on how AI technologies are developed, used or regulated.
Version history
This table records the published versions of this Guidance and the dates on which it was reviewed or updated.
Version | Date issued |
Version 1 | 20 October 2025 |
Version 2 | 26 May 2026[3] |
[1] Oliveira v. Ryanair DAC ADJ-00055225.
[2] Erdogan v. Workplace Relations Commission [2021] IEHC 348.
[3] Guidance updated having regard to Guerin v O'Doherty [2026] IECA 48