[2025] FWCFB 247
Citation: [2025] FWCFB 247
What happened
Somphong Thongkhamchanh, a driver for Rasier Pacific (operating the Uber Rides platform), filed an application under the Fair Work Act 2009 seeking an order that a ‘Driver Partner Services Agreement (Australia)’ contained an unfair contract term. The agreement, made on 1 September 2024, facilitates services through the Uber Driver app. Mr Thongkhamchanh claimed the agreement lacked accountability for platform failures, didn't account for app malfunctions in performance metrics, and lacked a fair process for challenging disciplinary actions. Rasier Pacific objected, arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction.
What was decided
The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission considered two questions regarding the Commission’s jurisdiction. The first question was whether Mr Thongkhamchanh’s application, arguing the services contract lacked certain terms, fell within the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Bench answered this question affirmatively. The second question was whether the contended unfair contract terms would relate to workplace relations matters if they existed in an employment relationship. This question remains unresolved and requires further consideration.
What it means for employers
Employers using contract arrangements, particularly in the gig economy, should review their contracts to ensure clarity regarding platform functionality, performance metrics, and dispute resolution processes. The Commission’s willingness to consider claims about unfair contract terms highlights the importance of fair and transparent contractual obligations.
What it means for employees
Employees in contract arrangements may have recourse under the Fair Work Act if they believe their contracts contain unfair terms. It's important to identify specific clauses and explain how they create an imbalance or disadvantage. The decision clarifies that the Commission can consider claims related to platform functionality and performance metrics.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwcfb247.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The full dataset, with structured fields for awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts, is available through the Business API. FairWork Mate AI answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. API + AI access is a paid product. Contact us for pricing or a 50% off first month.
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 by AI 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 →