[2025] FWC 2278
Citation: [2025] FWC 2278
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 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.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc2278.pdfWant 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.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →