Application by the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 2801
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant applied to the Fair Work Commission seeking an unfair deactivation remedy from Portier Pacific Pty Ltd, alleging he was deactivated from their Uber Eats platform. The company identified itself as the correct respondent and disputed the timing of the alleged deactivation, stating it occurred in March 2025. Both parties agreed that the Applicant had not performed any work on the platform since March 2025. The application related to a claimed deactivation on June 15, 2026.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commissioner formed a preliminary view that even if a deactivation occurred on June 15, 2026, the Applicant was not protected from unfair deactivation because he hadn't performed work regularly for at least six months. The Commission only needs to hold hearings when there are disputed facts. The Commissioner allowed the Applicant seven days to amend his application and challenge the March 2025 deactivation, with the Respondent having a further seven days to respond. If no amended application is received, the matter will be dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital labour platforms should ensure they have clear records of worker activity and adherence to any relevant codes or guidelines regarding deactivation. Regularly reviewing worker engagement data can help identify potential issues before they escalate into formal complaints. Understanding the 'regular basis' requirement for protection from unfair deactivation is crucial.
What it means for employees
Employees using digital labour platforms should keep accurate records of their work activity and understand the requirements to be protected from unfair deactivation, including performing work regularly for at least six months. If deactivated, employees should carefully review the reasons provided and consider seeking legal advice if they believe the deactivation was unfair.
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/2026fwc2801.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 →