Two Workers, Two Industries, One Road to the Tribunal: Is the Pursuit of Efficiency Creating a New Workplace Conflict?
Editorial note: The two accounts in this article were overheard in a public place. They have been anonymised and paraphrased, and their allegations have not been independently verified. The purpose is to examine wider workplace and governance questions, not to determine the merits of any individual case.
Inside This Article
The central question: Is the pursuit of efficiency creating a new form of workplace conflict?
This article examines:
-What an overheard conversation between two workers from different industries reveals about recurring employment experiences.
-How AI, organisational restructuring and cost-cutting may reshape jobs and redundancy—without making every business decision unlawful.
-Why internal grievance processes can generate substantial procedural activity without delivering meaningful resolution.
-Why many workers represent themselves in the Employment Tribunal and the practical difficulties they encounter.
-The emotional, financial and health consequences of navigating a prolonged workplace dispute.
-What responsible employers and policy makers can learn about consultation, accountability, evidence preservation, health support and access to justice.
The Overheard Café Conversation
I went to a café intending to work silently when suddenly a nearby conversation about the Employment Tribunal caught my attention. Two men were comparing notes about grievances, ACAS early conciliation, ET1 and ET3 forms, preliminary hearings, documents, addresses for service and the difficulty of understanding procedural rules without a lawyer.
What struck me was not the details of either dispute, which I could not verify. It was the recognition between them acting as though they both have similar goals.
They appeared to come from different sectors, yet each described the same broad journey: work became insecure; an internal process did not produce the resolution he expected; and he began learning employment law while carrying the financial and emotional consequences of losing work.
Their conversation raised a larger question.
If workers in very different jobs keep describing similar experiences, are we seeing isolated disputes, or a governance problem created by the way organisations pursue efficiency and manage conflict?
Two Industries, Similar Employment Experiences
One man appeared to be discussing the end of an agency placement. The other described being selected for redundancy in a creative role.
Those situations are not legally identical. An agency assignment ending is not automatically a dismissal, and an agency worker’s rights depend on the real working relationship and employment status. ACAS explains that an agency worker may be an employee, a worker or self-employed; those categories do not carry identical rights.
Even so, the two accounts shared important features. Both men believed that cost reduction sat behind the decision affecting them. Both had raised concerns internally, approached ACAS and started Employment Tribunal claims. Both were conducting their own cases and exchanging practical knowledge about chronology, correspondence and evidence.
I could not know whether either employer had acted unlawfully. That is a matter for evidence and, if necessary, judicial determination. But their discussion illustrated why employment disputes become so consuming.
The worker is not only contesting a decision. He is also trying to identify the correct respondent, understand his legal status, meet time limits, organise documents and translate a human experience into legal issues.
That distinction matters. Similar feelings of unfairness do not prove that the same law has been broken. They may, however, reveal a repeated failure of communication, consultation or internal accountability before litigation begins.
Whether AI and Cost-cutting Are Reshaping Redundancy
AI may change jobs before it removes them
Artificial intelligence does not need to eliminate an occupation to change the workforce. It can automate parts of a role, redistribute tasks, combine functions or allow an employer to expect the same output from fewer people.
Recent ONS business analysis suggests that AI use is growing but often remains limited rather than extensive.
Separate ONS reporting found that only a small minority of AI-using businesses said it had reduced their workforce headcount. Those figures do not support a simple claim that AI is already causing a surge in Tribunal cases.
They do support a more careful question: when technology changes how work is organised, who bears the cost of that transition?
Cost reduction can be lawful; the process still matters
Under section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, redundancy can arise where an employer’s requirement for employees to carry out work of a particular kind has ceased or diminished. The work does not have to disappear entirely. A genuine redundancy may exist where fewer employees are needed because tasks have been reorganised or automated.
Cost-cutting is therefore not automatically unlawful, and recruiting someone on a lower salary later does not by itself prove a false redundancy. Yet timing, role similarity and the destination of the work can be relevant evidence.
A responsible employer should be able to explain the business rationale, the proposed pool and selection criteria, the consultation undertaken, and the alternatives considered. ACAS guidance stresses meaningful consultation and consideration of ways to avoid or reduce redundancies.
Governance determines whether change becomes conflict
The strongest issue is not whether AI is inherently good or bad. It is whether leaders use technological change transparently.
A process is more likely to generate mistrust when the outcome appears predetermined, the explanation changes over time, selection criteria cannot be demonstrated, or substantially similar work quickly reappears under another title or on different terms.
AI may explain why a role is changing. It cannot excuse discriminatory selection, token consultation or a failure to consider reasonable alternatives. Technology makes the business decision possible; leadership remains responsible for the fairness and integrity of the process.
When Internal Resolution Does Not Feel Like Resolution
Internal policies often translate legal duties and recognised good practice into workplace procedures, but their wording and scope vary.
A grievance process should give an employer a real opportunity to understand a concern, establish relevant facts and provide a reasoned outcome. When it works, it can protect working relationships and prevent avoidable litigation.
The existence of a policy, however, does not guarantee meaningful resolution. A concern may be acknowledged without being answered. Meetings may occur without a clear investigative mandate. A worker may be passed between managers, human resources, occupational health and external advisers while no one owns the central question.
This is the crucial distinction: procedural activity is not necessarily procedural resolution. An organisation can produce meetings, correspondence, referrals and action plans while leaving the original issue undecided.
The ACAS Code of Practice says grievances should be handled promptly and without unreasonable delay. It does not impose one universal number of days, and it does not apply to redundancy dismissals. For relevant claims, however, an Employment Tribunal may adjust an award by up to 25 per cent where a party unreasonably fails to comply with the Code.
Leaders should therefore treat the Code as a minimum framework for fair engagement, not as a box-ticking exercise.
Informal discussion can be valuable, particularly when concerns are raised early. It becomes dangerous when informality is used to postpone a decision, blur accountability or avoid creating a reliable record.
A sound process should state what is being considered, who will decide it, what evidence has been reviewed and when the worker can expect an outcome.
Why Many Workers Represent Themselves in the Employment Tribunal
People who conduct their own cases are called litigants in person. A solicitor is not required in the Employment Tribunal, but accessibility in principle does not make the process easy in practice.
Cost is an obvious reason for self-representation. A worker who has lost income through dismissal, redundancy or sickness may not be able to fund specialist advice. Legal expenses insurance, trade-union help, pro bono assistance and limited paid advice may be available, but access is uneven. ACAS can explain procedure and provide conciliation, yet it cannot represent a party or give legal advice.
There is also an information problem. A claimant must turn lived events into a clear chronology and identify the legal claims those facts may support. They may need to manage disclosure, witness evidence, correspondence, case-management orders and deadlines while facing a represented respondent.
The Tribunal’s overriding objective requires cases to be dealt with fairly, proportionately, expeditiously and with parties on an equal footing. That principle is vital, but it cannot remove every disadvantage created by unequal resources or legal experience.
Self-representation should not be mistaken for lack of seriousness. It is often the only realistic route available. The danger is that a person’s ability to present a case may be confused with the underlying strength of the facts.
The Human Cost of Navigating the Tribunal
Employment litigation is usually described through forms, hearings and legal tests. The person living through it experiences something wider.
There is the emotional strain: uncertainty, anger and the loneliness of feeling that friends are present but cannot fully enter the problem.
There may be sleepless nights, anxiety or an aggravation of an existing mental-health condition. GP appointments, follow-ups and prescription reviews can become part of the unseen chronology of the dispute.
There is financial pressure.
Sickness or loss of employment can tighten a household budget just as the person needs advice, printing, travel or time away from job-seeking.
Then there is the labour of self-representation: reading unfamiliar rules, researching legal principles, organising emails, building a chronology and preparing evidence.
That work can consume evenings and weekends for months.
These consequences do not prove that a legal claim will succeed, and distress should not replace the required evidence. But senior leaders should not treat the human cost as irrelevant merely because it does not answer every legal question.
It is part of the organisational impact of unresolved conflict.
Early clarity, respectful communication and competent decision-making may not prevent every claim, but they can reduce avoidable harm.
What Responsible Employers and Policymakers Should Learn
1. Examine the substance, not the labels
Calling a meeting “informal,” a plan “supportive,” or a change “operational” does not determine its true effect.
Leaders should ask what decision is actually being contemplated, what rights may be engaged and whether the process gives the worker a genuine opportunity to respond.
This is especially important where sickness absence, disability, family leave, a grievance or protected disclosure overlaps with performance management or redundancy. Different legal duties may operate at the same time.
2. Do not let internal resolution become indefinite containment
Every concern should have an accountable owner, defined scope, reasonable timetable and reasoned outcome. If a matter moves between teams, the receiving decision-maker should know what remains unresolved.
Senior management should test whether the process has answered the substance of the complaint, not merely whether meetings occurred. Where the ACAS Code applies, compliance also carries potential consequences for Tribunal awards.
3. Separate health support from adverse judgment
Occupational-health advice, phased returns and reasonable adjustments should be considered for their proper purpose: enabling safe and sustainable work.
Employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled workers where the statutory requirements are met.
ACAS also recommends following a fair capability process and treating dismissal as a last resort. Supportive language loses credibility if the worker reasonably perceives that the outcome has already been chosen.
4. Consult before change becomes a conclusion
In redundancy or contractual change, consultation should happen while proposals can still be influenced.
Leaders should document the business rationale, explain the selection method, invite alternatives and consider suitable alternative work.
A flexibility clause is not unlimited permission to impose any change; ACAS advises consultation even where a contract appears to allow variation.
Technology projects should include an employment-impact assessment before roles are removed or substantially redesigned.
5. Preserve evidence and give reasons
Good governance depends on an accurate chronology.
Relevant emails, meeting records, selection documents and decision rationales should be preserved, handled lawfully and disclosed where required.
Redaction should protect genuinely irrelevant personal information, not conceal material context. Outcomes should identify the issues considered, the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the conclusion.
Consistent records protect both workers and employers.
If litigation begins, procedural discipline remains a leadership issue.
Under the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules, correspondence sent to the Tribunal must generally be copied to the other parties.
Employers, representatives and HMCTS should minimise avoidable errors involving addresses for service, document handling and case administration.
No party should obtain a practical advantage from preventable confusion.
For policymakers, the lesson is equally clear.
Tribunal accessibility cannot be measured only by whether a person may file a form without a solicitor.
It should also be judged by the clarity of guidance, the availability of early advice, timely case management and the system’s ability to place represented and unrepresented parties on a genuinely fair footing.
Better data could also show how often internal procedures narrowed disputes and how often they merely delayed escalation.
The larger lesson for senior management is that governance failures create costs long before a judgment.
They damage trust, consume management time, increase absence, weaken retention and turn potentially resolvable concerns into formal disputes.
Fair process is not an obstacle to efficiency. It is one of the conditions for efficiency that lasts.
Conclusion
The café conversation did not prove that AI is causing more Employment Tribunal claims, or that either man would succeed.
It revealed something more modest but still important: workers in different sectors can encounter the same mixture of insecurity, procedural complexity and isolation when organisational change is poorly explained or internal resolution loses credibility.
Employers are entitled to adapt, reduce costs and use new technology. Workers are entitled to expect that decisions affecting their livelihood will be reasoned, evidence-based and made through fair processes.
When efficiency is pursued without fair process or adequate safeguards, poorly governed cost-cutting may deliver an immediate budget saving, but it can create longer-term costs through workplace conflict, sickness absence, staff turnover and litigation.
This article provides general educational information and does not constitute legal advice.
References
Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Source review date: 20 August 2026.
ACAS.Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures.
ACAS.Getting legal advice.
ACAS.Consulting employees about changes to employment contracts.
Office for National Statistics.Artificial intelligence in UK businesses.
Office for National Statistics.Business insights and impact on the UK economy.
UK Parliament.Employment Rights Act 1996, section 139: redundancy.
UK Parliament.Equality Act 2010, section 20: duty to make reasonable adjustments.
UK Government.Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, rule 3: overriding objective.
UK Government.Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, rule 90: copying communications to other parties.
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary.Advice and resources for litigants in person.
HM Courts and Tribunals Service.Employment Tribunal hearing guidance for claimants.
“Speak up for those who cannot speak, and defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
If you’ve reached this far, thank you for reading. I want to know your thoughts. Please comment down below and let’s be friends.
