Tribunal's AI Rebuke Is a Warning for Job Seekers, Too

Australia's Fair Work Commission ordered a former Aldi worker, Sadnan Khan, to pay 1,230 Australian dollars toward the company's legal costs after finding he pursued an unfair dismissal challenge built on "plain wrong" AI-generated advice, according to ABC News Australia's reporting published August 29. Khan had used a paid version of ChatGPT to interpret case law and prepare his submissions, and at one point failed to strip the chatbot's own instructional text out of what he filed with the tribunal.

Deputy President Michael Easton wrote that "if Mr Khan had properly read his own AI generated replies … he would have known that his case was doomed," per the ABC report. The commission found Khan's continued pursuit of the case, despite repeated warnings it had no real prospects of success, amounted to unreasonable conduct — the basis for the costs order.

The case is not isolated. ABC's reporting cites commission data showing a 40 percent surge in Fair Work Commission cases linked to generative AI use between the 2023-24 and 2024-25 periods, with AI use concentrated among younger, self-represented, and non-English-speaking litigants. Of those AI users, 75 percent relied on ChatGPT and 60 percent used free versions of the tool. The same reporting notes that starting October 20, 2026, applicants before the commission will be required to disclose AI use and verify any facts or legal authorities it generates before filing them.

Not every AI-assisted filing before the commission has failed: the ABC report also references Gregory Baker, a Macquarie University computer science lecturer, who used AI agents to help successfully challenge casual employment classification rules — a reminder that outcome depends on how the tool is used, not simply whether it's used.

What this means for job seekers

The commission's message extends past courtrooms. Job seekers increasingly lean on AI for resumes, cover letters, interview prep, and now — as this case shows — formal workplace disputes. The tribunal's rebuke is a concrete illustration of what happens when AI output gets treated as authoritative rather than a draft: fabricated or misapplied citations, wasted time, and in Khan's case, a direct financial penalty.

The practical takeaway is verification as a job-search skill, not just a legal one. If you're using AI to draft an unfair dismissal complaint, a workplace grievance, or even a cover letter citing specific facts about a company, check every named case, statistic, or claim against a primary source before submitting it. The commission's coming disclosure requirement — telling the tribunal when AI was used and confirming its outputs — is a preview of the kind of standard employers and hiring managers may start expecting from candidates who lean on AI tools during the job search itself.

For anyone navigating a dismissal, grievance, or job application with AI assistance, the Fair Work Commission's ruling is a clear signal: treat AI output as a starting draft that needs independent verification, not as a stand-in for legal or professional judgment.

Sources

• Fair Work Commission condemns 'plain wrong' AI legal advice — ABC News (Australia)