Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd v the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 2303
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant worked as a Delivery Partner and then driver for Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (Uber) from February 6, 2025. His access to the Uber platform was suspended on January 9, 2026, after complaints were made about his conduct, including allegedly asking a minor to follow him on social media and touching a female passenger. the Applicant denies these allegations. He applied under s 536LU of the Fair Work Act for reinstatement, which a Deputy President granted, ordering his access be restored and deeming him to have performed work regularly from January 9, 2026. Uber appealed this decision and sought a stay.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has granted Uber’s application for a stay of the Deputy President's reinstatement order. The FWC found Uber had an arguable case regarding the Deputy President’s interpretation of the ‘Digital Platform Deactivation Code’ and other legal approaches. The decision was made conditional on Uber making payments to the Applicant pending the appeal hearing. The Commission acknowledged concerns about passenger safety but also considered the potential prejudice to the Applicant if a stay were refused.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital platforms should carefully review their deactivation processes, ensuring they comply with the Digital Platform Deactivation Code and have sufficient evidence before taking action against workers. They need to ensure notifications provided to affected individuals are clear and understandable. The FWC’s decision highlights the importance of balancing safety concerns with worker rights.
What it means for employees
Employees who believe their deactivation from a digital platform is unfair should consider applying under s 536LU of the Fair Work Act. While reinstatement orders can be granted, employers can seek a stay pending appeal, which may delay the outcome and impact earnings. It's important to have representation at hearings.
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/2026fwc2303.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 →