Application by the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 2419
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a driver for Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (operating as Uber), was deactivated from the platform in December 2025 due to complaints of inappropriate behaviour. The Applicant challenged this deactivation, arguing he did not engage in the alleged behaviour and wasn’t given a fair opportunity to respond or investigate. He had been driving for Uber since December 2021 and accepted Services Agreements on several dates, including August 31, 2024. Twelve complaints were made against him over time, with three being central to the deactivation decision. The Applicant stated he was temporarily suspended on November 11, 2025, and permanently deactivated on December 2, 2025.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found Uber's deactivation of the Applicant was unfair and not consistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. The Commission determined he was an employee-like worker protected from unfair deactivation under the Fair Work Act. While Uber argued the deactivation was due to inappropriate behaviour, the Commissioner wasn’t satisfied that this occurred on the balance of probabilities. The Commissioner ordered Uber to reactivate the Applicant and will determine the amount of lost remuneration he is entitled to. The respondent's name was amended from Uber Australia Pty Ltd to Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital labour platforms must ensure they have a fair process for investigating complaints against workers before deactivation, including providing opportunities for response and proper investigation. Reliance on customer feedback alone is insufficient justification for deactivation. Employers should review their Deactivation Codes to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act.
What it means for employees
Workers on digital labour platforms are protected from unfair deactivation under the Fair Work Act. If deactivated, workers have recourse to challenge the decision through the Fair Work Commission if they believe it was unfair and not in accordance with the Deactivation Code.
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/2026fwc2419.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 →