Application by the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 2919
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a driver for Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (Uber) since June 2018, sought an unfair deactivation remedy from the Fair Work Commission. Uber deactivated him in November 2025 due to reports of substance abuse. the Applicant argued the deactivation was harsh and unjust, citing inconsistencies with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. He completed over 16,000 trips for Uber. Records show he earned less than the contractor high-income threshold.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s application for an unfair deactivation remedy. The Commission found that Uber's deactivation was not unfair and consistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. While the Applicant was protected from unfair deactivation, the Commission noted he had received numerous complaints over time, some prior to the code's commencement. Uber provided records supporting the basis for deactivation related to a complaint about intoxication.
What it means for employers
Employers operating digital labour platforms should ensure their deactivation processes are consistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code and maintain thorough records of driver conduct and complaints. Clear communication regarding complaints and potential consequences is crucial, even if not all complaints warrant immediate action.
What it means for employees
Employees working through digital labour platforms have protections against unfair deactivation. However, it's important to understand the platform’s rules and guidelines, respond to any complaints received, and be prepared to provide evidence supporting your position in a dispute.
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/2026fwc2919.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