[2025] FWC 2370
Citation: [2025] FWC 2370
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant sought a remedy for unfair deactivation from Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (RP), which operates the Uber Driver App. RP argued the Applicant wasn't protected from unfair deactivation because he didn’t work through the platform regularly for at least six months, as required by law. The dispute centered on whether the Applicant worked an average of 60 hours per month or performed work on three days a week, as stipulated in the Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Code) Instrument 2024. RP provided trip logs showing lower hours than the Applicant’s records, which included time spent waiting for trips.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that while there was disagreement about the precise number of hours worked, the evidence showed the Applicant performed work on average 3 days a week. The Commission accepted this met the criteria in section 18(3) of the Code regarding regular work. While RP argued some time spent waiting for trips shouldn't be counted, the Commissioner did not rule on whether that was correct. The jurisdictional objection raised by RP was therefore unsuccessful.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital labour platforms need to accurately track and calculate employee-like worker hours, including any 'standby' or waiting time. They should review how they define 'regular work' in line with the Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Code) Instrument 2024.
What it means for employees
Employees working through digital platforms should keep detailed records of their working hours, including time spent waiting for tasks. This can be crucial if a dispute arises about whether they meet the criteria for protection from unfair deactivation.
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/2025fwc2370.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 →