Legal assistant fired in ChatGPT text message

The director of a Perth-based boutique law firm terminated the employment of a legal assistant in a text message drafted by artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT.

When legal assistant David O’Hurley did not turn up for work at Cornerstone Legal in early March this year, the “upset and frustrated” director, Tim Houweling, sent off a lengthy text message he drafted using ChatGPT, a chatbot with a natural language processing tool.

In it, Houweling said O’Hurley’s alleged pattern of non-attendance – including taking annual leave without prior agreement, arriving late, and taking long lunch breaks – and his “abandonment” of the workplace meant the “professional relationship has come to an end”.

O’Hurley has since pursued an application for a general protections dispute in the Fair Work Commission.

Before the matter could be listed for hearing, Cornerstone Legal raised a jurisdictional objection, claiming Houweling’s ChatGPT text message did not bring O’Hurley’s employment to an end.

Houweling said he “reacted” when he saw O’Hurley was not at work and “came to the view that he was not sticking to his end of the bargain, and he was just so unreliable that it frustrated me”.

He soon learnt through another of the firm’s directors that O’Hurley had a migraine and provided medical certificates to support his leave.

The two met the next day, and O’Hurley was offered a promotion.

Houweling said in addition to this meeting, O’Hurley provided two medical certificates for further absences later in the month and accessed the payroll system for an advance on his wages.

Cornerstone Legal told the Fair Work Commission that O’Hurley’s employment did not come to an end until 20 March, after he had allegedly been out of work without explanation for five days.

However, commissioner Paul Schneider said it was clear the text message was the reason for O’Hurley’s termination.

“Houweling, being frustrated with the applicant, used ChatGPT to draft what was a letter of termination, citing abandonment of employment as the reason, which was then issued to the applicant.

“The message, generated with the assistance of AI and then sent by Houweling, clearly articulates to the applicant that his employment was at an end,” Schneider said.

As for the abandonment reason, Schneider said that despite what appeared to be a “history of attendance issues”, O’Hurley had only been absent for a short period of time, had communicated his absence, and provided supporting documentation.

Further, the termination could not have been rescinded by Houweling because O’Hurley did not consent to that course of action.

“It is evident from the text message in question that it was the intention of the respondent to bring the employment relationship to an end,” Schneider said.

The jurisdictional objection was dismissed, and the matter will continue.