Sacked traffic controller exposed for using AI in legal battle to save his job after he was fired for allegedly urinating in public in front of workmate
A traffic controller who allegedly urinated in front of a colleague in public before he was sacked has lost his unfair dismissal case after using Google AI to help his case.
Emmanual Tischler took his former employer Avada Traffic to the Fair Work Commission in September 2025.
Mr Tischler worked for the company as a Ute driver and traffic controller before he was let go for a series of alleged safety incidents, including entering private property without authorisation, and leaving his post to scout for a new hall for his church.
He alleged Avada did not follow the Dispute Resolution Process as set out in its Enterprise Agreement.
Specifically, he claimed his manager did not call him to discuss the details of the multiple complaints against him.
His application was rejected by Commissioner Chris Simpson, who ruled that Mr Tischler had been ‘afforded procedural fairness’ and given reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations.
‘When each of the findings made above are taken together it satisfies me that at the time of termination the Respondent had a valid reason for dismissal,’ Simpson ruled.
The Fair Work Commission heard that a client had made a complaint to Avada, alleging he made ‘female staff members uncomfortable with long states’ and ‘being too close to them when they were working’.
Emmanuel Tischler (pictured) had multiple safety and behavioural complaints against him
‘There was talk that this controller, also on a previous jobsite with a different (crew), urinated into a bottle and proceeded to then tip it out in front of our … crew.’
In another incident, Mr Tischler allegedly urinated against a tree during stop and go duties.
Following his dismissal, it was alleged Mr Tischler continued to ‘harass staff, clients, and senior managers via email and phone calls, despite requests to stop this contact’.
Mr Tischler launched an appeal against the rejected claim in May 2026, choosing to self-represent.
However, the notice was found to contain ‘several brief paragraphs that did not advance any coherent contention of error in the Commissioner’s decision.’
Mr Tischler re-filed his appeal, but it was also rejected – with the panel noting the appeal, generated using Google AI, contained several incorrect claims.
‘Mr Tischler later filed a revised notice of appeal containing nine appeal grounds and submissions on the public interest,’ the ruling said.
‘Mr Tischler explained that he had copied and pasted the decision into Google AI and that his revised notice of appeal ‘reflects what was found’.’
Mr Tischler had worked for Avada traffic for six years as both a Ute driver and traffic controller
Mr Tischler claimed in his appeal that his dismissal had set a ‘dangerous precedent’, an ‘unsafe principle’, and a ‘legally unsafe rule’.
However, the panel was unmoved.
‘We note that the grounds contain obvious errors that in our experience are typical of AI generated applications, including the use of legal terminology in the wrong context, and mistaking the Commissioner’s summary of the parties’ evidence and argument as findings and conclusions made by the Commissioner,’ it said.
‘We see no apparent basis to doubt the correctness of (Commissioner Simpson’s) findings’.
Mr Tischler told Daily Mail he was ‘finding it hard to find other work… due to the allegations made against me’.
