[2025] FWC 2278
At a glance
- 1
What happened
the Applicant sought a remedy for unfair deactivation from Uber Eats. He initially worked as an Uber Eats delivery driver and then as an Uber Driver Partner. A previous decision found he was protected from unfair deactivation. However, both parties agreed to revoke that earlier decision. The initial decision relied on evidence from the Applicant and a witness, a witness, Ms Laura Tierney, an Industrial Relations Lead at Uber Australia. Concerns arose about whether Uber Technologies Incorporated, a US-based company, was the correct respondent and whether a remedy could be imposed.
What was decided
Deputy President Saunders revoked the earlier decision regarding the Applicant’s protection from unfair deactivation. This revocation occurred by consent of both parties, leading to a settlement and a notice of discontinuance filed by the Applicant. The Deputy President noted that the question of whether someone performing both Uber Eats and Uber Driver Partner roles meets the six-month regular work requirement remains open for future proceedings. A scheduled hearing was vacated.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital labour platforms should carefully consider their legal structure and ensure they are correctly identified as the platform operator. This is crucial for determining liability in disputes, particularly concerning unfair deactivation remedies. The case highlights the importance of accurate record-keeping and clear contractual arrangements.
What it means for employees
Employees working through digital labour platforms should understand the requirements for protection against unfair deactivation, including the six-month regular work period. The case demonstrates that these requirements can be complex and subject to change based on evidence and legal arguments.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.