Writing your Fair Work claim with ChatGPT? From 20 October you have to say so, or risk the claim being thrown out
From Tuesday 20 October 2026 the Fair Work Commission requires anyone who used GenAI on a claim document to disclose it, check it against real evidence and real law, and say they did. Here's what that means for a casual who has just lost their shifts, the three eligibility tests a chatbot gets wrong, and the free human help that's one form away.
A former Aldi store assistant was told at about 4pm on 26 March 2026 that he was dismissed. By 10:02pm he had lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the chatbot's sign-off still in it: "Here is your final clean copy-paste version, with today's date inserted as the dismissal date." He was three days short of being allowed to claim at all, and in August the Commission ordered him to pay $1,230 of Aldi's legal costs.
From Tuesday 20 October 2026, the Fair Work Commission's GenAI requirements apply to every matter it handles. If ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini helped you write, edit or prepare anything you lodge, you have to say so, check it yourself against real evidence and real law, and state in the document that you did. Skip that and the document can be disregarded, you can be ordered to pay the other side's costs, or the case can be dismissed.
Short version: using a chatbot is allowed. Hiding it, or trusting it, is what gets punished. Before you ask one anything, run the Commission's own eligibility check, because that's where chatbot-written claims from casuals usually die. This is general information, not legal advice.
What changes on 20 October
The rules sit on the Commission's Using AI to help you with your case page and in a guidance note that takes effect the same day. They cover any document in your case: the application, a submission, a witness statement, an email to the Commission.
| What you must do | What that looks like in practice |
|---|---|
| Tell the Commission you used GenAI, and how | Tick "Yes" where the form asks (from 20 October some forms will). Otherwise put this at the top of the document: "GenAI was used in preparing this document. I used it by asking GenAI to …" |
| Check it yourself | Every fact, case and section of the Act has to be real, relevant and supported by actual evidence. A person does the checking, not another chatbot |
| State that you checked | Say so in the document. A witness also confirms the statement is their own knowledge, in their own words, and true to the best of their knowledge |
The Commission is blunt about why: GenAI output "may contain incorrect facts, fake legal cases, misleading information or outdated law", and you stay responsible for everything you give it. Lawyers and paid agents cop a higher bar again, with a hyperlink to every case they cite.
Why the Commission is doing this now
A record 44,039 claims were lodged between July 2025 and April 2026, and the Commission's President says its workload rose more than 70 per cent in three years, a rise the Commission infers is principally down to AI tools making it easier to lodge. In the Commission's own research this year, about 40 per cent of surveyed unfair dismissal applicants had used AI, mainly ChatGPT. The same research found that "sycophantic or hallucinatory AI outputs may reinforce the applicant's position, elevating their expectations": the tool says your case is strong because you told it your side.
"Artificial intelligence, in 2026 at least, is a drafting tool that can assist litigants when used properly." Deputy President Easton, Khan v Aldi [2026] FWC 3144
The Aldi case: three days, repeated warnings and $1,230
Sadnan Khan started at Aldi on 29 September 2025 and was notified of his dismissal on 26 March 2026, three days short of six months. The minimum employment period is measured to the day you're told, not the day the dismissal takes effect, and his AI-written material argued the wrong date from the first filing to the last. Commission staff flagged the problem two days after he lodged. In the days before the hearing the Deputy President wrote to him, more than once, explaining the test in plain English, inviting him to discontinue and warning about costs. He filed two more AI-generated submissions on the same wrong date, then conceded at the hearing on 5 August and withdrew.
The $1,230 covered the hours Aldi's lawyers spent on a hearing that, in the decision's words, "should never have taken place". Easton was explicit that using AI to draft "is not, of itself, unreasonable". What was unreasonable was ignoring the Commission because the chatbot kept agreeing: "It is quite possible that Mr Khan adopted AI as his quasi-legal advisor and then blindly submitted AI generated outputs as his own material." Had he compared that material to what the Commission told him, "he would have realised that his AI arguments were just plain wrong".
The three eligibility tests a chatbot gets wrong for casuals
Casuals who lose their shifts are exactly the people opening a chatbot at 10pm, and casuals have the most ways to be ineligible. Everything below comes from the Commission's eligibility check, which now carries its own AI warning at the top.
| The test | What the rule actually is | Where the chatbot goes wrong |
|---|---|---|
| Regular and systematic | Casual service only counts if you worked on a regular and systematic basis and had a reasonable expectation it would continue. An irregular casual can't apply at all | It treats "casual for eight months" as eight months of service. Three shifts most weeks is probably fine; the odd Saturday when they were stuck probably isn't |
| Minimum employment period | Six months, or 12 months if the business had fewer than 15 employees at the time (regular casuals count). Measured to the day you were notified, not your last shift | The Khan error: it counts to the date the dismissal took effect, and it rarely asks how many staff the venue had |
| 21 days | You must apply within 21 days of the dismissal taking effect. Extensions need exceptional circumstances: not knowing, forgetting, being stressed or misunderstanding the date don't count, and most requests are declined | It writes you a polished late application with a reason the Commission has already said it won't accept |
| Were you an employee, and were you dismissed? | Independent contractors and gig workers on an app can't apply for unfair dismissal (gig workers have a separate unfair deactivation path). Resigning isn't a dismissal, and a casual whose shifts simply dried up may be asked to show the employment actually ended | It takes "they stopped rostering me" as a dismissal and "I was on a contract" as a detail |
Two dates, one claim: a worked example
Say you started as a regular casual at a 20-staff Newtown pub on Wednesday 1 April 2026, three shifts a week. On Monday 28 September the manager tells you this fortnight is your last, and your final shift is Saturday 10 October. A chatbot will likely count 1 April to 10 October, call it six months and nine days, and tell you you're in. The Commission counts to 28 September, the day you were notified: three days short, the margin that sank Mr Khan. The 21-day clock runs from the day the dismissal took effect, so it closes on 31 October. Two tests, two different dates. Had the pub employed 12 people including its regular casuals, you'd have needed 12 months.
How to use the chatbot without it costing you the case
- Run the eligibility check first, with no chatbot involved. It asks the questions above in the right order and tells you if you fail one before you've paid a fee.
- Paste the Commission's set-up prompts before you ask anything. They're on the GenAI page and tell the model to base its answers on the Fair Work Act, fwc.gov.au, fairwork.gov.au and real Australian decisions, to establish eligibility before the merits, and to say clearly when the law doesn't support you. Long chats forget instructions, so paste them again when the answers get flattering.
- Keep names, payslips and the venue's documents out of public tools. In the Commission's words, information you provide may not remain private or secure.
- Check every case and section number yourself in the Commission's document search, on AustLII, or on the Federal Register of Legislation. If you can't find it, it isn't real, and giving the Commission false or misleading information is a serious offence.
- Write your witness statement in your own words, then disclose and declare: tick Yes if the form asks, otherwise paste the Commission's line at the top, say what you asked the tool to do (organise facts, edit, translate), and state that you've checked the content.
- Get a human to read it before you lodge. The Commission's Workplace Advice Service organises a free appointment of up to an hour with a lawyer for dismissal matters, if you have no lawyer or paid agent and aren't a union member. Community legal centres do the same. Commission staff can explain the process but can't give legal advice.
What a claim costs, and what it usually pays
| Stage | What it costs or pays |
|---|---|
| Application fee | $92.70 for 2026-27, refunded if you discontinue before a conciliation, conference or hearing date is set, or at least 2 days before it |
| Conciliation | About 5 weeks after you apply, and 3 in 4 cases resolve here |
| Compensation if you win | Lost pay only. The median is 5 to 7 weeks' pay, and fewer than 0.4% of applicants reach the cap of $95,050 for 2026-27 (or half a year's wage, whichever is lower) |
| A costs order against you | Rare, but $1,230 in Khan v Aldi for continuing after clear warnings |
For a Level 2 casual doing three six-hour weekday shifts a week at the Hospitality Award's $33.85 an hour, five to seven weeks' pay is roughly $3,050 to $4,270. Real money, and worth knowing before you decide whether the fight is worth the weeks. If the shifts thinned out rather than ended, the sharper question is whether the venue is managing you out, which our post on refusing a shift covers: cutting your shifts because you used a workplace right is adverse action.
Where Shiftly comes in
A casual's real protection isn't a claim form. It's not having every hour at one venue, because the same no firm advance commitment that lets you refuse a shift lets a venue quietly stop rostering you, and no tribunal can put you on next Saturday's roster. Shiftly is free workforce management for venues with an on-demand staffing network built in, coming soon and starting in Sydney. When a venue is short, the shift goes out to workers nearby: you see the venue, the hours and the pay before you accept, the venue engages you as an independent contractor at rates at or above award minimums plus super, and you're paid fast once the shift is done, less an 8% service fee. Join the Shiftly waitlist.
Frequently asked questions
Do I have to tell the Fair Work Commission I used ChatGPT?
Yes, for anything lodged from 20 October 2026, in any Commission matter. Where the form has a GenAI question, answer yes and say briefly how you used it. Where it doesn't, add the Commission's note at the start of the document and state that you've checked the content. The Commission's examples of use include research, organising facts, transcribing, translating, writing and editing, so tidying up your grammar counts.
Can a casual make an unfair dismissal claim?
Only if you worked on a regular and systematic basis with a reasonable expectation of continuing work, and only after six months (12 months if the employer had fewer than 15 employees, counting regular casuals). You also need to have actually been dismissed: a venue has no obligation to offer a casual more shifts, so a thinner roster is not automatically a dismissal. Our guide to how casual work actually works in Australia covers the casual test.
What happens if I miss the 21-day deadline?
The Commission can only extend it in exceptional circumstances, and its own form lists what doesn't qualify: not knowing about the limit, forgetting, being busy, stressed or upset, going on holiday, or misunderstanding the dismissal date. Serious illness, the death of a family member, or an error by a lawyer or paid agent can qualify. Most extension requests are declined. You can apply before you have all your evidence, so lodge first and send documents later.
Will using AI get me a costs order?
Not by itself. The Commission is a pay-your-own-costs jurisdiction, and the Aldi order was made because the applicant kept going after the Commission had told him, in plain English, that he wasn't eligible. Deputy President Easton said using AI to draft correspondence and even submissions "is not, of itself, unreasonable". Disclose it, verify it, and drop a claim the Commission has told you is hopeless, and the order isn't aimed at you.
Co-founder of Shiftly. Milan works with hospitality businesses across Australia to make rostering, timesheets and award-based pay radically simpler.
