For all the talk of how extraordinary and transformative artificial intelligence (AI) can supposedly be, it continues to be a scourge for the Fair Work Commission (FWC).
In the recent FWC case of Emmanuel Tischler v Avada Traffic Pty Ltd [2026] FWCFB 174, the Full Bench considered an appeal in an unfair dismissal matter initiated by the Applicant employee who had been unsuccessful at first instance.
In the brief published decision, the FWC set out the role AI had in the conduct of the appeal by the Applicant.
At paragraph 3 the Full Bench noted:
“Mr Tischler’s original notice of appeal contained several brief paragraphs that did not advance any coherent contention of error in the Commissioner’s decision.”
Then something changed – it seems the Applicant started using AI for the purpose of the case. As the Full Bench observed (at paragraph 3):
“Mr Tischler later filed a revised notice of appeal containing nine appeal grounds and submissions on the public interest. Mr Tischler explained that he had copied and pasted the decision into Google AI and that his revised notice of appeal ‘reflects what was found’. We will not recite this.”
So, how did that go for the Applicant? The Full Bench gave a scathing critique of the AI output (at paragraph 3):
“The nine grounds variously contend that the decision is affected by errors of law, errors of logic, and significant errors of fact. Having considered each ground, we do not find any of them to present an arguable case of appealable...
The legal battle over Elmore County Hospital is heating up with accusations of conspiracy and conflicts of interest. In a filing last Thursday, Ivy Creek Healthcare, which leases the hospital from...