Using AI to Write Your Fair Work Claim? New FWC Rules From 20 October 2026

From 20 October 2026, anyone who uses generative AI to prepare a document for a Fair Work Commission case has to follow three rules. The Commission published its guidance note on 24 August 2026, and it applies to every Commission matter from that date: unfair dismissal, general protections, bullying, sexual harassment, right-to-disconnect disputes, everything.

If you use an AI tool to create, write, edit or otherwise prepare an application, submission, witness statement or any other document, you must:

• Tell the Commission you used AI and how. Some forms will carry a yes/no question from 20 October. For documents without one, you add a note at the top.
• Check the document yourself. Every fact, every case, every section of the Act has to be accurate, relevant and supported by real evidence. A person has to do the checking, not another AI tool, and the document has to say you have done it.
• Keep witness statements in the witness's own words. A statement or declaration must be based on the witness's own knowledge, reflect their own words, and be true to the best of their knowledge.

Lawyers, paid agents and other professional representatives carry one extra duty: hyperlinks to every case cited in a document prepared with AI. The full requirements are in the guidance note (PDF) and on the Commission's Using AI to help you with your case page.

The Commission is drowning in claims, and it thinks AI is part of the reason. President Justice Adam Hatcher told an industry conference on 11 September 2026 that unfair dismissal and general protections matters keep growing and that generative AI is changing how people prepare and lodge applications (speech summary).

The numbers behind that, as reported by The Conversation on 17 September 2026: a record 44,039 claims were lodged between July 2025 and April 2026, claims have grown about 70% over three years, and a Commission survey of more than 400 unfair dismissal applicants found around 40% had used AI to help. The research also found that flattering or invented AI output can "reinforce the applicant's position", so people arrive expecting to win cases they cannot win.

The Commission's answer is disclosure and checking, not a ban. It says plainly that AI "can help people prepare documents more efficiently", and it has published its own set-up prompt for people who want to use a chatbot responsibly.

The guidance note lists three consequences for ignoring the rules:

• your documents can be given less weight or disregarded
• you can be ordered to pay the other side's costs as well as your own
• your application can be dismissed

Costs orders are rare in the Commission, but they happen. In August 2026 Deputy President Easton ordered a former Aldi store assistant to pay $1,230 of the supermarket's legal costs after he pressed on with an unfair dismissal claim that was "obviously prepared using AI", complete with leftover chatbot notes, even though he had been dismissed three days short of the six-month minimum employment period and had been warned the claim could not succeed (as reported by The Conversation). The Deputy President did not blame the tool. He blamed treating it as a "quasi-legal advisor" while ignoring human advice.

Giving false or misleading information to the Commission is also a serious offence in its own right, and that is where an unchecked AI draft can take you.

Where the form has an AI question, tick yes and describe the use briefly. Where it does not, or for any other document, the Commission suggests you paste this at the top and complete it:

"GenAI was used in preparing this document. I used it by asking GenAI to … [insert details here]."

The kinds of use it expects to see described include research, organising facts and evidence, transcribing speech, translating into English, writing content and editing content. You should also state in the document that you have checked it.

Two more things the Commission says. Do not put personal information about yourself or other people, or confidential case information, into a public AI tool, because it may not stay private. And AI is not a substitute for legal advice. Free advice is available from the community legal centres and lawyers listed on our legal help page, and the Commission's Workplace Advice Service.

Yes, if you lodge what they produce. Our advisor drafts letters, chronologies and application text, and our tools generate documents. If any of that ends up in a Form F2, a submission or a witness statement, disclose it the same way you would any other AI assistance. That is not a problem for your case. The problem the Commission is targeting is undisclosed, unchecked material, especially invented cases and facts.

The safe habit from 20 October: treat any AI draft as a first pass, check every date, name, figure and legal reference against your own records and real sources, rewrite witness statements in the witness's own words, and say up front what the tool did. Our unfair dismissal checker tells you whether you are eligible before you spend time on a claim at all, which is the check the Aldi applicant skipped.

• Am I eligible? Check the 21-day deadline and the minimum employment period first.
• Did AI touch this document? If yes, add the disclosure note or tick the form question.
• Is every case real? Search each one in the Commission's decisions search or on AustLII. If you cannot find it, remove it.
• Is every section of the Act real and relevant? Check the Federal Register of Legislation.
• Are the witness statements in the witness's own words and true to their knowledge?
• Have I stated that I completed these checks?

Our unfair dismissal claim guide walks through the process step by step, and our plain-English summaries of Commission decisions are a place to find real cases like yours.