Application by the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 1801
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
The Applicant, an employee-like worker for Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (Uber) since October 2022, applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair deactivation remedy. He was deactivated on June 17, 2025. The application followed earlier complaints against the Applicant from riders, ranging from inappropriate questions and phone use to dangerous driving and alleged verbal abuse. Uber provided records of these complaints and messages exchanged with the Applicant. The Applicant disputed some of the allegations and claimed certain notifications were not received.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that Uber’s deactivation of the Applicant was unfair and not consistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. The Commission considered evidence from both parties, including records provided by Uber and testimony from the Applicant. While acknowledging Uber complied with procedural requirements, the Commissioner determined the deactivation itself was unfair. An order for reactivation has been made, and remuneration is to be determined.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital labour platforms need to ensure their deactivation processes are fair and consistent with any applicable Deactivation Codes. Thorough investigation of complaints and clear communication with workers about concerns raised are essential. Failing to do so can lead to costly reactivation orders and reputational damage.
What it means for employees
Employees working through digital labour platforms have protections against unfair deactivation. If deactivated, employees should review records provided by the platform and consider seeking legal advice if they believe the deactivation was unfair or not in line with applicable codes.
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/2026fwc1801.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 →