Application by the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 2497
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a 66-year-old driver for DiDi Mobility (Australia) Pty Ltd, was suspended and then permanently deactivated from the platform following an incident on January 8, 2026. During a trip, a passenger accused him of racist behaviour. After reporting the incident to DiDi, his access was temporarily suspended, then extended, before permanent deactivation occurred on January 27, 2026. the Applicant subsequently applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair deactivation remedy.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that DiDi unfairly deactivated the Applicant and did not comply with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. The Commission had jurisdiction to deal with the permanent deactivation, even though the application was made before the final notice. They ordered his reactivation and will issue further directions regarding lost pay. the Deputy President considered evidence from both parties and found DiDi’s actions were inconsistent with their own code.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital labour platforms must adhere to relevant codes of practice, such as the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. Investigations into employee conduct should be thorough and fair, providing opportunities for response and considering all evidence before taking disciplinary action like deactivation. Failure to do so can result in legal challenges and orders for reactivation.
What it means for employees
Employees working through digital platforms have rights regarding deactivation processes. If deactivated unfairly, employees may seek remedies from the Fair Work Commission. It is important to document interactions with employers and understand relevant codes of conduct that govern platform operations.
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/2026fwc2497.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 →