‘Worker who used AI to rant was ungovernable’
SYDNEY: A worker’s “barrage” of overbearing, repetitive and often rambling AI-assisted emails to his bosses and his inability to accept that management had dealt with his complaints made him “ungovernable”, the workplace tribunal has ruled, upholding his sacking.
FujiFilm Data Management Solutions dismissed the senior java manager following his unfounded claim that a disagreement with a colleague was bullying escalated to the point where the employment relationship became untenable.
Using AI to help him write a stream of emails to management, the worker’s unsubstantiated bullying claim spiralled into complaints about sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and failures to provide natural justice, abide by workplace laws, and company policies.
The worker was terminated after an investigation found he falsified a time sheet and made a false allegation against the general manager.
During unfair dismissal proceedings launched by the worker, FujiFilm said the employee had become “ungovernable”, a point supported by Fair Work deputy president Tony Slevin in his decision rejecting the worker’s unfair dismissal claim.
Mr Slevin said he had considered whether it was relevant as mitigation for the worker’s conduct that he collaborated with AI in preparing the myriad of communications that contributed to his dismissal.
The worker said he used “actual intelligence” in collaboration with the AI tools; that he used AI to generate the text used in the material he filed in his application; attributed his knowledge of specific statutory provisions and other legal rights to directed research using AI.
Mr Slevin said the worker’s use of AI was unfortunate. “It was counterproductive,” he said. “It led to his demise. He described the technology as a tool. The communications it produced were dense, repetitive and often rambling. They were demanding and overbearing. They lacked context and perspective.”
Mr Slevin said the use of AI appeared to have given the worker a “false sense of security that his communications, laden as they were with allegations of impropriety by his managers and demands for corrective action, were appropriate and acceptable in a workplace setting”.
“Objectively, they were not.”
However, Mr Slevin said the worker was clear that he took responsibility for the communications that were sent, and, consequently, the commission did not regard his use of AI as an explanation for his conduct.
Finding his dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Mr Slevin said the worker had “become ungovernable”.
“His communications with his employer were inappropriate,” he said. “The conclusion that the employment relationship was untenable was justified.”
