Application by the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 2909
At a glance
- Penalty
- $10,610
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was deactivated from Uber's platform in November 2025, following an earlier decision where the Fair Work Commission found his deactivation unfair and ordered his reactivation. Uber argued the Applicant didn’t lose income due to the deactivation. He worked for both Uber and Didi, another digital labour platform, and also briefly held a taxi license. The period of calculation began when he was reactivated on July 24, 2026, after an initial suspension on November 25, 2025.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission ordered Uber to pay the Applicant $10,609.53 for lost remuneration due to his unfair deactivation. This amount was calculated by subtracting his substituted earnings (income from Didi and taxi work) and avoided expenses (fuel costs) from his estimated lost earnings based on his previous average weekly income with Uber ($1,118.13). The Commission considered evidence of the Applicant’s earnings and found he had engaged in reasonable efforts to mitigate his loss.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital labour platforms must ensure deactivation processes are fair and comply with the Fair Work Act. Failing to do so can result in orders for lost remuneration, even if workers have alternative income sources. Employers should carefully document reasons for deactivation and consider potential impacts on worker earnings.
What it means for employees
Employees deactivated from digital labour platforms may be entitled to compensation for lost earnings if the deactivation is found unfair. Workers should gather evidence of their earnings and any subsequent income earned through other means when pursuing a claim.
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/2026fwc2909.pdfSend your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
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