Application by the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 1761
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, an Uber Eats driver, sought a remedy against Portier Pacific Pty Ltd (Uber Eats) after her account was deactivated. She argued she performed work through the platform for at least six months, making her eligible for protection from unfair deactivation under the Fair Work Act. The Respondent objected, claiming she didn't perform work regularly enough and citing the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. Evidence showed the Applicant worked between April 2024 and January 2025, with periods of reduced work due to illness, exams, and other commitments. A 'trip log' documented her activity.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission considered whether the Applicant performed work on a regular basis for at least six months. The Commission accepted her explanations for periods of reduced work and acknowledged the applicant’s evidence was not challenged. While she didn’t work every week, the Commission found that she had worked consistently enough over the period to meet the requirements of s 536LD(c) of the Fair Work Act. The decision focused on whether the six-month requirement should be assessed from the date of deactivation or across her entire engagement with the platform.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital labour platforms need to carefully consider how they define 'regular basis' when assessing worker eligibility for unfair deactivation protections. Explanations for periods of reduced work are likely to be considered, and evidence supporting those explanations should be available. The Commission’s approach suggests a flexible interpretation of the six-month requirement.
What it means for employees
Employees using digital labour platforms who believe they have been unfairly deactivated should gather records of their work activity. Explanations for periods of reduced work can be important in demonstrating regular engagement with the platform, even if work isn't consistent week to week. The six-month period is assessed from the date of 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/2026fwc1761.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 →