ESL small business owner penalised for reliance on AI-assisted redundancy letter

A Victorian small business owner for whom English is a second language has been criticised by the Fair Work Commission for his use of ChatGPT to compile an email which advised an employee of the redundancy of their role, with Commissioner Redford commenting that the use of the “cursory” method of communication lacked “decency”.

Citing financial difficulties, the employer made the decision to retrench the housekeeping supervisor role within its small team at its serviced apartment complex and the incumbent employee was notified by email on 26 May that her position would cease a month later. The same correspondence extended “the opportunity to discuss potential alternative roles, such as part-time or casual housekeeping”, but the housekeeper considered this fell below the consultation requirements that should have preceded the redundancy of her role.

In considering the supervisor’s application for unfair dismissal, Commissioner Redford agreed with the employee, finding the employer failed to satisfy the consultation requirements of the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2020 which governed her employment.

The Commissioner was not persuaded by the employer’s claim that his reliance “as a non-English speaker” on ChatGPT “may not have captured his true meaning” when the email was compiled, noting that the employer’s own evidence indicated he had made the decision to retrench the supervisor’s role before discussing it with her. Commissioner Redford observed that the employee had worked for the employer for five years and she considered that they had a “good relationship”, while the employer also had opportunity to have a discussion with the supervisor about the future of her employment when they worked together on 26 May. Commissioner Redford commented, “it was an omission on his part to not have spoken to [the employee] face to face on that day. This would have afforded her a much more appropriate opportunity to respond.”

Commissioner Redford failed to extend the employer any sympathy for his lack of knowledge in respect of human resources protocols stating, “there is a difference between the ignorance which may result from a small business not having access to human resources expertise, and a failure to adhere to basic standards of decency with respect to an employee”. The Commissioner further offered, “in most circumstances, a cursory text message or email is not an appropriate means of conveying information as serious as the dismissal of a person’s employment”.

Being satisfied the supervisor had been unfairly dismissed, Commissioner Redford turned to consider compensation. Acknowledging that, even if the supervisor’s employment had been terminated fairly, “which it was not”, her employment would not have continued much longer because her role no longer existed. Concluding the housekeeping supervisor’s role would have been made redundant even if she had been properly consulted first, the employee was awarded $1,162.00 (gross), plus superannuation, being the equivalent of one week’s wages in compensation.

Lord v Millet Hospitality Geelong Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2740 (25 September 2025)