UK worker facing redundancy says employer withdrew a proposed alternative role, saying the work would instead be done by AI (first-person account)
In a public post to r/LegalAdviceUK created on 16 October 2026, a worker at a small UK business writes that about three weeks earlier the owner began a redundancy consultation with HR input and told them they were the only person being considered for redundancy. At the first formal consultation they were told of a proposed alternative role with a pay increase. At the second consultation, held with the HR adviser, the poster said they wanted that role and were told it was no longer considered viable and that the work would instead be completed by AI. After a colleague in the two-person department resigned, the owner said the department would be removed entirely; the poster says the company is now advertising a junior role with a similar title whose duties include assisting AI tools. The poster says they are frightened of losing their income, feel forced out so the owner can hire cheaper labour, and have contacted Acas. Commenters say this may be a lawful redundancy. The account is the poster's alone; the employer is not identified and no employer statement was retrieved. No dismissal had taken effect at the time of the post.
- AI system
- Unidentified AI system
- Occurred
- Event date unknown
- Reported
- 16 October 2026
- Event location
- United Kingdom
- What the AI did
- Relation unknown
- Reported harm
- Professional HarmPsychological Distress
- Whose AI use
- An institution’s AI use
- Setting
- Work
- Evidence
- AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source
- 6 claims: 6 reported. 5 open questions
- People reported harmed
- 1 person
AI system as recorded: AI which, by the poster's account, the employer said would complete the work of a withdrawn alternative role; no tool, product or use is described
What Happened
The consultation. The poster writes that the business owner 'asked me to attend a meeting without prior warning and informed me he would be beginning a redundancy consultation with the input of HR', and that they were told they were the only person being considered for redundancy. At the first formal consultation they were told of a proposed alternative role, which would include a pay increase and much of their current workload, and were sent its job specification.
The AI reason. At a second consultation with the HR adviser the poster said they were interested in the alternative role. They write that they were asked what made them think it was an offer of a job, and were then told 'that they no longer consider the proposed alternate role viable and the work will be instead completed by AI'. When the poster pointed out that a colleague's resignation had left a vacant role, the owner said the department would be removed entirely. The poster says the company is now recruiting for a junior role with a similar title whose listed duties include 'assisting the AI tools'.
Effect on the poster. The poster writes that they are frightened of being out of work, that their proposals for alternative roles were shut down without discussion, and that it feels as though they are being forced to leave so the owner can hire cheaper labour. They say they have spoken to Acas and are waiting for a call back from Citizens Advice.
Other views. Commenters say an employer can make a role redundant while keeping its functions, and that the account does not clearly describe a sham redundancy. No AI tool or product is named, and whether any AI system now does the work is not reported.
Reported harm
The poster says the employer withdrew a proposed alternative role during their redundancy consultation, saying the work would instead be completed by AI, then said their department would be removed, leaving them frightened of losing their income (first-person account, uncorroborated).
Outcome
OngoingAt the time of the post the poster was still in the redundancy consultation, had been told the department would be removed, and had been told by Acas that they could submit a formal grievance and possibly take the matter to a tribunal. No dismissal date, redundancy terms or employer statement is reported.
What remains unknown
- The employer, its sector and where in the UK it is.
- What the employer meant by the work being completed by AI, and whether any AI tool now does it.
- Whether the redundancy has taken effect, and its date and terms.
- Whether the stated AI reason was the real reason; the poster suspects a wish to hire cheaper labour, and commenters think the redundancy may be lawful.
- The dates of the consultation meetings; the post gives only "three weeks ago" for the first.
What the evidence supports
AI involvement: reported. The poster says that at the second redundancy consultation they were told the proposed alternative role was no longer viable and the work would instead be completed by AI. This is a reported institutional response to a decision to adopt AI: the poster's account of the employer's stated reason is the only evidence, no AI output or action toward the poster is described, no tool is named, and no employer statement was retrieved.
6 claims: 6 reported. What the statuses mean
Reported The poster says the owner of the small business where they work began a redundancy consultation with HR input, and that they were told they were the only person being considered for redundancy.
Causal attribution. Poster's account; no employer statement was retrieved.
- reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'the business owner asked me to attend a meeting without prior warning and informed me he would be beginning a redundancy consultation with the input of HR'; 'I was told I was the only person being considered for redundancy'
Reported The poster says that at the first formal consultation they were told of a proposed alternative role, with a pay increase, and sent its job specification to consider.
Causal attribution. Poster's account.
- reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'During the meeting I was informed of a proposed alternative role, which would include a pay increase'; 'I was sent the job specification to'
Reported The poster says that at the second consultation, held with the HR adviser, they said they were interested in the alternative role and were told that the role was no longer considered viable and that the work would instead be completed by AI.
Causal attribution. The AI reason is attributed to the employer only through the poster; no AI tool, product or use is described.
- reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'I informed them I would be interested in the alternative role'; 'told me that they no longer consider the proposed alternate role viable and the work will be instead completed by AI'
Reported The poster says that after a colleague in the two-person department resigned, the owner said the department would be removed entirely, and that the company is now advertising a junior role whose duties include assisting AI tools.
Causal attribution. Poster's account; the job advert itself was not retrieved.
- reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'he has now decided he will be removing our department entirely'; 'the company is advertising and actively recruiting for a Junior role with a very similar job title to my current one'; 'with the inclusion of “assisting the AI tools”'
Reported The poster says they are frightened of being out of work, feel forced out so the owner can hire cheaper labour, and have contacted Acas and Citizens Advice.
Causal attribution. Poster's account of their own reaction and view of the employer's motive.
- reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'quite understandably bricking it at the concept of being out of work'; 'It feels as though I am being forced to leave to allow the owner to hire cheaper labour'; 'I have spoken to ACAS'
Reported Commenters in the thread say the facts may describe a lawful redundancy, because a role can be made redundant while its functions are kept, and that the process is not clearly a sham.
Causal attribution. Commenters' opinions on the poster's account; they do not establish the employer's motive or the lawfulness of the process.
- reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'an employer can exercise the legitimate redundancy of a role whilst still retaining 100% of the functions of that role within the business'; 'I would not say it is clearly a sham redundancy'
Sources
1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.
- r/LegalAdviceUK, 16 October 2026: "Help, I think I’m being subject to a sham redundancy (UK)"(opens in new tab)
s1 · reddit.com · Forum post · English · Inspected · 16 October 2026 · Primary
How the sources were read, and where the events happened
Read in English on 2026-10-20 by the research agent (an AI): the post and six archived comments (three of them automoderator notices) through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID and link ID; the live reddit.com thread returned HTTP 403. No reply by the poster is archived. The poster's handle is not recorded. Applies to s1.
Event countries: United Kingdom. Affected-person countries: United Kingdom. Court countries: Unknown.
The poster titles the post '(UK)', describes a UK redundancy consultation and says they have spoken to Acas and Citizens Advice; the region within the UK is not stated.
Reviewed for publication 2026-10-20: Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of a redundancy consultation in which, by the poster's account, the employer withdrew a proposed alternative role because the work would instead be completed by AI. Reviewed as a consequential institutional response to AI adoption; described with attribution and without corroboration, including commenters' view that the redundancy may be lawful.
People described
The poster, a worker at a small UK business placed at risk of redundancy
People reported harmed in this case
1 person
0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed
One person: the poster, who writes that they were the only person being considered for redundancy. The poster is not counted as a direct AI user: the harm is the employer's decision.
Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.
Cite this case
Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.
APA
NOPE. (2026). UK worker facing redundancy says employer withdrew a proposed alternative role, saying the work would instead be done by AI (first-person account). AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-uk-small-business-worker-says-employer-withdrew-alternative-role-saying-ai-would-do-the-work-redundancy-first-person
BibTeX
@misc{2026_uk_small_business_worker_says_employer_withdrew_alternative_role_saying_ai_would_do_the_work_redundancy_first_person,
title = {UK worker facing redundancy says employer withdrew a proposed alternative role, saying the work would instead be done by AI (first-person account)},
author = {NOPE},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {AI incidents},
url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-uk-small-business-worker-says-employer-withdrew-alternative-role-saying-ai-would-do-the-work-redundancy-first-person}
} Related cases
Junior developer says their employer told 17 staff in one video meeting that their roles were redundant because of AI (first-person account)
In a public post to r/cscareerquestions created on 17 October 2026, a person who says they joined a product company as an associate full-stack developer at the start of the year writes that, while still on probation, they were invited to a Microsoft Teams meeting 'regarding my employment' at which 17 staff were told that their roles were redundant because of AI and that they were no longer needed. The poster says they were writing the probation report due on the 23rd when it happened, that there was no prior hint, and that they feel upset, demotivated and frustrated. In replies the poster agrees with a commenter who suggests that AI was a cover for financial problems, and writes that the reasons given for sackings are not usually the real ones. The employer, its location and the date of the meeting are not stated, and the poster says they are not in the United States. The account is the poster's alone and uncorroborated; no employer statement was retrieved.
Derbyshire Police refer a senior detective to the police watchdog, which opens a gross misconduct investigation into the officer's use of AI
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said, as reported by the BBC on 10 August 2026, that Derbyshire Constabulary had made a voluntary conduct referral on 23 June 2026, following an internal review of an officer's use of artificial intelligence and concerns that it was not in line with guidance and conditions issued by the force. The IOPC decided the matter warranted an investigation, and the officer was served notice of an investigation for alleged gross misconduct. The BBC, citing the Financial Times, reported that a person familiar with events said the officer is a detective chief inspector alleged to have used AI to maintain decision logs, which investigators keep to record their reasoning and which can be disclosed to defence lawyers. The BBC describes the case as unrelated to the criminal investigation opened in June into another Derbyshire officer. The AI system and the outcome are not reported.
US and UK: Hachette cancels the US edition of the novel Shy Girl and discontinues the UK edition after allegations it was AI-generated, with the author denying personal use of AI
On 19 March 2026 Hachette Book Group said it had cancelled the US publication of the horror novel Shy Girl by Mia Ballard (Orbit imprint) and would not continue the UK edition (Wildfire imprint, first released in November 2025). Reports say the decision followed an investigation by Hachette and came a day after the New York Times asked the publisher about online allegations that the text was largely AI-generated. The allegations came from readers on Goodreads, Reddit and YouTube and from AI-detector results, including a 78.4 percent AI-generated score on the Pangram detector that a publishing consultant says two other services confirmed. Ballard denied personally using AI in emails to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and told the New York Times that an acquaintance hired to edit the original self-published version used AI. Ballard wrote that "my name is ruined" and "my mental health is at an all time low", and said legal action was being pursued. Hachette’s public statements cite its commitment to original creative expression. The sources inspected do not report what its investigation found. Whether AI generated any of the text, and who used it, is unresolved.
UK: a trades-college staff member says a student reported that a video showing her undressing, which appeared to be a manipulated version of an apparently real video of her talking with a student, was circulating among classmates; she stepped away from the class for weeks and says the atmosphere had chilled on her return
WIRED (Caroline Haskins, 24 August 2026) reports the account of a staff member at a UK college that trains 16-to-19-year-olds in trades such as construction, whose job combines administration with a counselling role; WIRED identifies her by first name only, which is not repeated here. She says administrators told her this winter that a student had reported two videos circulating among classmates: one apparently real, showing her talking with a student, and one that appeared to be a manipulated version showing her taking her clothes off and dancing in underwear or a bikini. The student she suspected denied making it when questioned and soon dropped out. The college let her step away from the class for a few weeks and educated students about deepfakes; she says the atmosphere had chilled when she returned and that the episode has made her more cautious. The college did not respond to WIRED.
If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.