Application by the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 2724
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, who drives passengers for Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (Uber) since 2023 and previously delivered food via Uber Eats from 2018, was deactivated from the platform on October 29, 2025. This followed three complaints about his driving and a preliminary deactivation notice issued on October 22, 2025. the Applicant claims the deactivation was unfair due to biased complaints. Uber relied on evidence from its Industrial Relations Lead, Laura Tierney, regarding complaint handling procedures and records of the Applicant’s earnings.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant's application for an unfair deactivation remedy under s 536LU of the Fair Work Act. The Commission found Uber did not unfairly deactivate him. While satisfied he was a protected worker, the Commission determined Uber complied with its Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code and that the complaints were sufficient grounds for deactivation. the Applicant did not provide written submissions or documentary evidence beyond his application form.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital labour platforms should ensure their complaint handling processes are consistently applied and documented, as well as providing clear communication to workers regarding complaints and potential consequences. The decision highlights the importance of adhering to Deactivation Codes when deactivating platform workers.
What it means for employees
Employees working through digital labour platforms have protections against unfair deactivation under s 536LU of the Fair Work Act. However, it's important to respond to notifications and engage with the platform’s processes if complaints are raised. Failure to do so may weaken a claim for unfair deactivation.
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/2026fwc2724.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 →