Skip to main content
FWCFair Work Commission · 2026

Application by the Applicant

Citation: [2026] FWC 2875

At a glance

Employees affected
1

What happened

the Applicant sought to extend the time limit for filing an unfair deactivation application against Portier Pacific Pty Ltd (Respondent). He was deactivated on March 30, 2026, and filed his application on May 20, 2026, 30 days past the 21-day deadline. The Applicant claimed he was continuously communicating with Uber Support to resolve the issue internally before legal action. The Respondent provided a deactivation notice sent on March 30, confirming immediate effect.

What was decided

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) dismissed the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to file his unfair deactivation claim. Deputy President Saunders found that the Applicant did not provide an acceptable explanation for the 30-day delay. While he attempted internal resolution, this didn't justify the extended filing period. The FWC considered factors like the reason for the delay, action taken to dispute the deactivation, and potential prejudice to the Respondent but concluded there were no exceptional circumstances warranting an extension.

What it means for employers

Employers should ensure clear communication regarding deactivation processes and timelines. Maintaining accurate records of communications and deactivation notices is crucial. The decision highlights that internal resolution attempts by employees do not automatically excuse delays in lodging formal complaints with the Fair Work Commission.

What it means for employees

Employees must be aware of strict time limits for filing unfair deactivation applications. Seeking internal resolution is advisable, but it shouldn’t delay lodging a formal application within the prescribed timeframe. If an extension is needed, exceptional circumstances are required and must be clearly demonstrated.

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.

unfair-dismissalgeneral-protectionspenalty-ratesmisclassificationsham-contractinglong-service-leaveparental-leavewage-theft

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2875.pdf

Want 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. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.

FairWork Mate AI

This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.

Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.

Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99

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

All cases