A Melbourne worker has been called out by the Fair Work Commission for including fake AI-generated legal precedents in his unfair dismissal claim. The self-represented worker told the Commission that he had used a “legally trained” AI to help with his submissions. However, when the Commission examined them, they turned out to be AI hallucinations that “lacked any legal basis.”
This latest unfair dismissal AI gaff comes after a Sydney worker last year had his Fair Work general protections claim thrown out after the Commission learned he had used ChatGPT to argue his case. In this article, we’ll look at the events of this latest case: Mr. Jason Riley v Nuvei Australia Merchant Services Pty Ltd [2026].
Worker loses unfair dismissal claim with fake AI citations
Melbourne-based Jason Riley started working for online-payments solutions firm Nuvei Australia Merchant Services in September 2022. He was initially hired as an account manager. Mr. Riley’s Fair Work Commission unfair dismissal claim detailed that during the hiring process, he had told Nuvei Australia that he had experienced “burn out” in his previous job. He also said that he had struggled with “mental health challenges.”
In July 2023, Mr. Riley transitioned into a new position as an account executive. This role came with a higher level of pressure than his previous one, requiring him to hit rigorous sales targets. Following this promotion, Mr. Riley’s mental health began to decline. In the latter half of 2023 and early 2024, he took over 100 hours of personal leave. In February 2024, he went on extended medical leave that lasted for over sixteen months.
Workers’ comp requests knocked back
Mr. Riley told the Fair Work Commission that he took this medical leave because he was suffering from a “work related medical condition.” Within the first few weeks of this absence, he exhausted his paid leave entitlements and remained on unpaid leave. Throughout his absence, Mr. Riley provided Nuvei Australia with several WorkCover Certificates of Capacity.
In his subsequent Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Riley admitted that every certificate he submitted to the company explicitly stated he had “no capacity for employment.” Crucially, none of these medical documents provided a prognosis for his recovery nor an estimated date for his return to work.
Dismissed despite arguing his mental health had improved
After Mr. Riley had been absent from his duties for over a year, Nuvei Australia initiated a formal review of the employment relationship in February 2025. By June 2025, the company issued a show cause letter to Mr. Riley, stating they were considering termination of employment. Nuvei Australia argued that his extended absence appeared to have no foreseeable end. The firm also claimed that there was no evidence to suggest Mr. Riley could perform the inherent requirements of his sales-focused role.
Mr. Riley and Nuvei Australia had a final meeting on 16 June 2025, which Mr. Riley attended alongside a union representative. During this discussion, which lasted fifteen minutes, Mr. Riley said that he was “doing a lot better” and that his health was “in a different place.” However, he did not confirm that he was fit to return to work, stating he was not a “medical professional.” Mr. Riley also failed to produce any formal medical evidence to substantiate these claims or prove his capacity for work. Consequently, Nuvei Australia proceeded with the termination of employment on 19 June 2025.
Argued employer didn’t do enough to confirm his medical condition
Mr. Riley subsequently lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, intending to represent himself during Fair Work Commission proceedings. He argued Nuvei Australia had failed in its duty of care. Specifically, he contended that the company should have been more proactive in seeking detailed medical information about his condition. Mr. Riley said Nuvei Australia should have ordered an independent medical examination, rather than relying on WorkCover certificates which he claimed were merely administrative paperwork without real diagnostic value.
Meanwhile, Nuvei Australia defended the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim by asserting that it had followed a rigorous and fair process. The firm argued that it had consistent medical evidence showing Mr. Riley was unable to work and that it had provided him with multiple opportunities to demonstrate a capacity to return. Nuvei Australia maintained that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, but a necessary response to an indefinite absence. It argued that this was not a case of unlawful termination, as the decision was based on objective medical data provided by Mr. Riley himself.
Called out for AI hallucinations in Fair Work unfair dismissal submissions
Mr. Riley’s unfair dismissal hearing took place in January 2026. The Fair Work Commission noted that he admitted to using a “legally trained” AI tool to submit his case. It highlighted that some of the case law Mr. Riley had cited as precedents in his submissions were fake.
The Commission said that “particular legal principles or authorities” that he had included “may have been AI hallucinations and lacked any legal basis.” The Commission, however, gave him a pass on his AI stuff-up. It said that “to Mr. Riley’s credit, he did not press these when they were queried.”
Turning to the merits of Mr. Riley’s termination of employment challenge, the Fair Work Commission rejected his argument that the WorkCover certificates were merely administrative. It said that Nuvei Australia was entitled to rely on the evidence that Mr. Riley had zero work capacity. The Commission noted that he had told the company about his improved health. However, these comments “fell far short” of showing Nuvei Australia that he could actually do his job when compared against the formal medical evidence.
Given these findings, the Commission ruled that Mr. Riley’s termination of employment had been fair and his claim was dismissed.
‘Unsustainable’: AI-generated unfair dismissal claims are overwhelming the Fair Work Commission
The case of Mr Riley is not the first and surely won’t be the last time we’ll see a self-represented worker botch their Fair Work unfair dismissal claim by using AI. The most notable recent example of this was a Sydney worker last year who had his Fair Work general protections claim thrown out after the Commission learned he had used ChatGPT to argue his case.
The worker had admitted that he lodged his claim two and half years after his dismissal on the advice of ChatGPT. The AI had told him that his former employer had transgressed various legal obligations. However, at his hearing, the Commission said there was “no basis for this advice.” This led to the Commission issuing a warning about the “obvious danger” of relying on AI tools like ChatGPT for legal advice.
The staggering increase in Fair Work claims
Stories like these come as the Fair Work Commission is grappling with a surge in the number of unfair dismissal and general protections claims. Many believe this surge is partly due to workers using AI for legal advice and to prepare their claims.
The Commission’s annual report for the 2024–25 financial year revealed a total of 44,075 claims lodged. This represented a 10% increase compared to the previous financial year and a 24% jump above the five-year average.
Breaking down the figures by the specific type of claim reveals where the pressure is most intense:
- Unfair dismissal claims: Increased by 11.7% compared to the previous year.
- General protections claims: Increased by 13% and sat at 27% above the five-year average.
Fair Work Commission slams surge in ‘non-serious’ claims
This surge in Fair Work Commission claim lodgements is only increasing too. Data from the first quarter of the 2025–26 financial year showed that general protections claims were 57% above the three-year average.
As reported by the Australian Financial Review, the Commission’s president Justice Adam Hatcher commented to an industrial relations conference that this surge in general protections claims is “unsustainable” for the organisation. He said that a large amount of claims are “neither meritorious nor serious.” Justice Hatcher claimed that data indicates that many workers are simply using the Commission and its claims process as a way to “leverage a settlement.”
To help stem the rising tide of claims, in late 2025 the Commission began implementing significant procedural reforms. These are designed to streamline the claims process, filter out unmeritorious claims and ensure more rigorous engagement from all parties.
Key reforms include:
- Enhanced claim requirements: The previous “tick-a-box” format for claim forms (Form F8) has been scrapped. Applicants are now required to provide a detailed, substantive explanation of their alleged contraventions.
- Early screening of late claims: Claims filed beyond the strict 21-day time limit will no longer be automatically served on the respondent. Instead, a Commission Member will first assess whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify the delay.
- Greater scrutiny of representation: The Commission now has the power to permit or reject requests for legal or paid agent representation “on the papers,” before a conciliation conference. This allows for earlier intervention regarding the suitability and conduct of representatives.
- Detailed employer responses: Respondents (employers) are likewise required to provide more comprehensive information in their response forms (Form F8A), particularly regarding jurisdictional objections.
Soccer coach dismissed for outsourcing job to ChatGPT
There is also no shortage of stories about employees getting fired for using AI. And one of the most recent high-profile cases was a Spanish football coach who was sacked for his controversial “delegation” of his managerial duties to ChatGPT. Robert Moreno, who had previously managed the Spanish national soccer team, was head coach at top-flight Russian club FC Sochi.
He was dismissed by the Russian Premier League club in September 2025. The official line from the club cited a “mutual agreement” to part ways. This was after FC Sochi had a string of losses. However, the true reason for the dismissal was revealed in January 2026.
ChatGPT schedule required players to stay awake for 28 hours
FC Sochi’s former sporting director alleged to media that Mr. Moreno had essentially automated his coaching. He claimed that what began as a modern experiment with data turned into a total dependence on ChatGPT to handle everything from tactical formations to player logistics. The sporting director cited one particular episode when FC Sochi made the trip for a fixture in Khabarovsk. The journey is known for being one of the most grueling away fixtures in Russian football.
He claimed that Mr. Moreno presented a travel and training schedule that had been entirely “optimised” by ChatGPT. Upon review, the club was stunned to find that the AI-generated plan required players to remain awake for 28 hours straight. It also required players to attend a training session at 7am two days before the game. When questioned on the lack of sleep for the athletes, Mr. Moreno reportedly defended ChatGPT’s plan.
ChatGPT gave bad advice on new signing, coach denied all claims
The sporting director also alleged that Mr. Moreno used ChatGPT to settle a debate on which striker to sign. By feeding performance data from scouting platforms into the bot, the AI “selected” Kazakhstan forward Artur Shushenachev over other candidates. As it turned out, ChatGPT got that signing wrong. The player failed to score a single goal in 10 appearances.
Mr. Moreno has since argued the sporting director’s claims were untrue and simply an attempt at character assassination. Speaking to the press, he claimed that his use of ChatGPT was mainly to translate Russian phrases into Spanish. Mr. Moreno said that “a chat doesn’t prepare my matches.” He also argued that his signing of the Kazakh player was a collective club decision involving medical and scouting staff.
Read more: General Protections Claim or Unfair Dismissal Claim? The distinction and relationship.
Want to lodge a Fair Work claim?
Our team at A Whole New Approach (AWNA) assists employees across Australia with unfair dismissal, forced resignation, general protections, sexual harassment and discrimination claims. We’re feared by employers for our results helping over 16,000 workers take action via Fair Work.
If you want to make a claim, act fast, as most require lodgement within 21 days of your employment ending. Contact us today on 1300 766 700 for a free and confidential first consultation.
