Application by the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 2798
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
The Applicant sought an unfair deactivation remedy from Portier Pacific Pty Ltd (Uber) under section 536LU of the Fair Work Act. He claimed deactivation on June 4, 2026, but Uber stated it occurred on July 10, 2025. Evidence including screenshots showed a review process concluding on July 9, 2025. The Applicant acknowledged receiving a final deactivation notice on July 10, 2025 and hadn't worked since June 4, 2025. He contacted Uber multiple times regarding the deactivation.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission refused to grant the Applicant an extension of time for his unfair deactivation application. The Commission found that the Applicant’s account was deactivated on July 10, 2025, making his application out of time. the Commissioner considered the factors outlined in section 536LU(4) of the Fair Work Act but concluded there were no exceptional circumstances justifying an extension. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital labour platforms should ensure clear and timely communication regarding deactivation decisions and processes. Maintaining accurate records of deactivation dates and related correspondence is crucial to defend against claims. Compliance with the Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code) Instrument 2024 is important.
What it means for employees
Employees need to be aware of strict time limits for lodging unfair deactivation applications under the Fair Work Act, typically 21 days. If there's a belief that a deactivation occurred outside this timeframe, seeking legal advice promptly is essential.
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/2026fwc2798.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 →