Application by the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 2442
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant worked as a driver for Uber through the Uber Driver Platform. In July 2025, he received complaints from two riders. The first rider alleged the Applicant asked to be paid outside of the app. The second rider claimed the Applicant cancelled the ride and demanded payment via bank transfer. Following these complaints, Uber deactivated the Applicant's access to the platform. He subsequently applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair deactivation remedy, seeking reinstatement and lost remuneration.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s application for an unfair deactivation remedy. the Commissioner found that Uber’s deactivation of the Applicant was consistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. The Commission considered evidence including complaints from riders and transcripts of conversations between the Applicant and Uber representatives. Because the deactivation aligned with the Code, the Commission concluded it could not be deemed ‘unfair’.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital labour platforms should ensure their deactivation processes align with relevant codes like the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. Clear communication of rules and consequences for violations is crucial. Thorough investigation of complaints before deactivation is also important, but adherence to established procedures can mitigate risk.
What it means for employees
Employees on digital labour platforms need to be aware of platform rules and guidelines, such as those relating to payment methods and rider interactions. Understanding the process for appealing a deactivation is vital if an employee believes it’s unfair. Keeping records of communications with the platform can also assist in any dispute.
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/2026fwc2442.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 →