World Day for Safety and Health at Work, observed each year on April 28, raises a different question this year. The ILO’s 2026 theme is clear: “Revolutionizing Health and Safety: The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Digitalization in the Workplace.”
Artificial intelligence and digitalization are making genuine contributions to workplace safety: robots operating in hazardous environments, accident prediction systems, ergonomic analysis tools. But the same technologies are generating a new category of dispute. Algorithmic management, AI surveillance, automated hiring and termination decisions; the tensions these create both threaten worker health and are finding their way into courtrooms and legal proceedings.
This article examines the new types of workplace disputes that artificial intelligence is producing and how those disputes can be resolved.
New Risks AI Brings to the Workplace
Algorithmic management and psychosocial risks
A practice that began in courier, logistics, and retail sectors and is now spreading into white-collar work: algorithmic management. A worker’s productivity, breaks, pace of movement, and even facial expressions are monitored and evaluated in real time by software. These systems, which replace the discretion of a human manager, generate chronic stress, burnout, and a sense of lost control among workers.
This is not only an individual health concern; it is also a serious workplace safety risk. ILO research on psychosocial risks consistently shows that occupational stress and burnout directly increase the likelihood of accidents. Workers managed by algorithms are known to experience this risk at significantly higher levels.
AI surveillance and privacy violations
As remote work became widespread, employers turned to employee monitoring software. Screenshot capture, keystroke logging, camera-based monitoring, location tracking; the use of these tools is increasing rapidly both in Turkey and globally.
European case law on this issue is clarifying: the European Court of Human Rights has made clear that employee surveillance must meet specific conditions to be lawful. In Turkey, the limits on the processing of employee data under personal data protection legislation are becoming a focal point of legal debate.
AI in hiring and termination decisions
In 2024, AI-powered recruitment tools in the United States processed more than 30 million applications and generated hundreds of discrimination complaints. The question of whether algorithms produce systematic exclusion based on variables such as age, gender, or ethnic background has risen to the top of the agenda for both lawyers and workers.
The use of artificial intelligence in termination processes raises similar questions. An employee dismissed on the basis of a performance evaluation produced by an algorithm needs to understand how that algorithm works in order to make sense of the decision. This demand for ‘algorithmic transparency’ is becoming a new axis of dispute between employers and workers.
AI liability in workplace accidents
An artificial intelligence system failed to detect a safety violation, or gave incorrect guidance, and an accident occurred. Where does liability begin and end in this scenario? The software developer? The employer? The third party that integrated the system? These questions remain unanswered under both employment law and product liability law, and the dispute potential is substantial.
The Legal Framework in Turkey
In Turkey, occupational health and safety disputes are governed by the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 and the Labour Law No. 4857. Mandatory mediation for employment disputes has been in place since 2018.
Workplace disputes arising from artificial intelligence have not yet been addressed by a specialized regulatory framework within this structure. The existing legislation is struggling to accommodate these disputes; legal gaps remain around the oversight of algorithmic decisions, limits on data processing, and AI liability.
This gap represents both a risk and an opportunity. Resolving disputes before they reach the courts is a significantly more advantageous outcome for both parties and for institutions.
Why Are These Disputes Particularly Suited to ADR?
Several characteristics of AI-related workplace disputes make them especially well suited to mediation and other ADR methods.
Technical complexity
Proving in court how an algorithm reaches a decision is extraordinarily difficult. In mediation, by contrast, the parties can examine the reasoning behind algorithmic decisions together, in a setting that can include technical experts. A resolution can emerge far more quickly and at far lower cost than a judicial ruling.
Continuity of the relationship
In the vast majority of workplace disputes, the parties must continue working together after the matter is resolved. Litigation frequently damages this relationship in ways that cannot be repaired. Mediation focuses on producing a resolution while preserving the relationship.
Confidentiality
When AI systems and data processing practices are at issue, exposing trade secrets and employee data in a public judicial process carries serious risks for both parties. Mediation keeps all of this information confidential.
Speed
AI technology changes rapidly. The algorithm at the centre of a dispute may well have been modified or decommissioned by the time a court case concludes. ADR offers a resolution environment far better suited to this pace.
A Proactive Approach: Before the Dispute Arises
Managing the risks that artificial intelligence creates in the workplace cannot depend solely on responding after a dispute has emerged. Proactive steps both reduce dispute risk and make resolution easier when a dispute does arise.
- Transparency policies: Establishing clear policies that explain to employees which AI systems are in use, which decisions they influence, and how they work.
- Internal complaints mechanism: Creating a safe channel through which employees can challenge algorithmic decisions and report privacy violations. Corporate ombudsman systems can serve this function.
- Contract readiness: Adding provisions to employment contracts and supplier agreements requiring AI-related disputes to be resolved through mediation.
- Regular audits: Periodically reviewing AI systems in use through an independent lens to assess whether they produce discriminatory outcomes or generate psychosocial risk.
April 28 Carries a Different Meaning This Year
Each year on April 28 we mark workplace accidents and occupational diseases and renew the commitment to safer workplaces. This year the ILO draws our attention to something else as well: technology is transforming safety, and in doing so it is also transforming the threats to safety.
Alongside physical hazards, psychosocial risks, data breaches, algorithmic decisions, and AI liability have taken their place. These new threats are generating new types of dispute. How we resolve those disputes has a direct bearing on workers’ rights and on the sustainability of the institutions that employ them.
Mediation and ADR methods offer a strong foundation for resolution in this environment: pre-litigation, fast, confidential, and relationship-preserving.
What Is ADRIstanbul Doing in This Space?
ADRIstanbul provides mediation and facilitation services in employment law and corporate disputes, including those arising from artificial intelligence in the workplace. Employee complaints arising from algorithmic management, AI surveillance disputes, hiring and termination objections, and compensation processes following workplace accidents all fall within the scope of these services.
If you would like to understand which method is best suited to your dispute, you can request a preliminary assessment.
How Can We Help You?
Contact us for detailed information about our dispute resolution methods, processes, and customized approaches tailored to your situation.
References
ILO. (2026). World Day for Safety and Health at Work 2026: Revolutionizing Health and Safety. ilo.org.
ILO. (2023). Safe and Healthy Working Environments Free from Violence and Harassment. ilo.org.
Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331. mevzuat.gov.tr.
Labour Law No. 4857. mevzuat.gov.tr.
Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698. mevzuat.gov.tr.
Foley & Lardner. (2026). Navigating Workplace AI When Federal, State Policies Clash. foley.com.
HR Defense Blog. (2025). AI in Hiring: Emerging Legal Developments and Compliance Guidance for 2026.
Carter, C. (2025). AI Surveillance: Reclaiming Privacy Through Informational Control. Journal of Labor Law.
Pollack Peacebuilding Systems. (2026). AI-Driven Mediation: Best Practices, Challenges and Future Directions.
Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School. (2026). AI Mediation: Using AI to Help Mediate Disputes. pon.harvard.edu.
