From 20 October 2026, a new Fair Work Commission (FWC) Guidance Note will address the growing use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in proceedings. It comes as a self-represented litigant credits an ‘AI legal team’ with helping him secure a landmark FWC win.
In June 2026, the Federal Government enacted the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Act 2026 to assist the FWC in managing a surge in disputes driven by the use of artificial intelligence by self-represented litigants. In response, the FWC issued a Guidance Note governing the use of GenAI in Commission cases.
Effective from 20 October 2026, the Guidance Note is designed to ensure transparency, accuracy, and ethical compliance in the preparation of documents submitted to the Commission.
Key requirements under the Guidance Note
1 . Mandatory AI disclosure
The Guidance Note requires any party using GenAI to prepare documents for the FWC to disclose its use and explain how it was used. This requirement applies to all forms of assistance provided by GenAI, including drafting, editing, organising facts, and researching legal principles. The disclosure must specify the type of AI tool used and the nature of its involvement.
Failure to disclose the use of GenAI may result in serious consequences, such as the Commission giving less weight to the document, disregarding it entirely, ordering the responsible party to pay costs, or even dismissing the case.
2. Verification and case law hyperlinking
Parties must ensure that all details in their documents are accurate and relevant to the case. They are also required to include a statement in the document affirming that this verification has been completed.
The Guidance Note prohibits relying solely on GenAI tools to verify the accuracy of content. Instead, parties must consult reliable sources such as Commission case law, Benchbooks, AustLII, and the Federal Register of Legislation. Any case law cited in GenAI-assisted submissions must be hyperlinked to the relevant legal databases. After completing these checks, parties must include a statement in the document certifying that all details have been verified and are correct. The individual verifying the document must confirm that the content is accurate, relevant, and compliant with procedural rules.
The FWC has emphasised the importance of human verification due to the inherent limitations of GenAI. Parties must manually check all details in the document to ensure that:
- All facts and evidence referenced are accurate and exist.
- All legal citations, including cases, legislation, and articles, are valid and support the stated legal positions.
- All quotes and extracts are accurate and properly sourced.
3. Witness statements and declarations
Parties are prohibited from using GenAI to create the factual content of a witness statement or declaration. Such documents must reflect the witness’s or declarant’s own knowledge and must not contain factual material generated by AI.
If GenAI is used to assist in drafting, writing, editing, or preparing a witness statement or declaration, the witness or declarant must review the document and make any necessary changes to ensure that it is based on their own knowledge, reflects their own words, and is true to the best of their knowledge.
4. Personal and confidential information
Parties must not disclose personal information about another person involved in the case or any confidential information about the case to public GenAI tools or any GenAI systems that may not guarantee the security of such information.
A recent FWC decision involving GenAI
The recent case of Gregory Baker v Macquarie University [2026] FWC 3054 (12 August 2026) serves as a practical example of how GenAI can be effectively utilised in workplace disputes. The claimant, Mr Baker, a computing academic with no formal legal training, used GenAI tools (including ChatGPT Pro and Claude) to assist him in organising evidence and drafting submissions. These tools acted as his ‘AI legal team’, helping him prepare his case, which was then meticulously reviewed and verified for accuracy and relevance. Ultimately, Mr Baker secured a landmark victory, converting his casual role into a permanent part-time position.
While the case represents a historic win for AI-assisted litigation, the FWC remained focused on the applicable legal principles and did not issue any endorsement or praise for the use of AI tools. However, the case demonstrates that, when used correctly, GenAI can be a valuable resource in legal proceedings, particularly for self-represented litigants.
Implications for employers
The Guidance Note and the FWC’s new powers and procedural requirements have significant implications for employers, particularly those involved in workplace disputes. These changes underscore the importance of transparency, accuracy, and compliance when using AI tools in FWC proceedings. Key considerations include:
- Increased compliance obligations: Employers must ensure that any use of AI in drafting FWC documents adheres to the new disclosure and verification requirements. This may require additional training for HR and legal teams, as well as the implementation of internal policies to govern AI use.
- Risk of sanctions: Non-compliance with the FWC’s requirements could lead to adverse procedural outcomes, including costs orders. Employers should exercise caution when using AI tools and ensure that all submissions are thoroughly reviewed for accuracy and compliance.
- Strategic considerations: The heightened scrutiny of AI-generated content may provide grounds for employers to question whether submissions made by other parties comply with the new requirements. Conversely, employers must also be prepared to defend their own use of AI in proceedings.
- Use of personal information: Employers must avoid inputting personal or confidential information into public GenAI tools, as this could result in breaches of privacy obligations or Commission orders. Examples of sensitive information include names, contact details, health records, and information obtained through Commission orders.
The FWC’s new powers represent a significant step forward in addressing the challenges and opportunities posed by AI in workplace disputes. By understanding and adapting to these developments, employers can mitigate risks and leverage AI to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in managing workplace disputes. With the 20 October 2026 effective date fast approaching, employers should act now to review their use of AI in workplace matters, update internal policies, and ensure their teams are prepared to meet the FWC’s new requirements.
Fair Work Commission Guidance note: Use of generative artificial intelligence in Commission cases
