Application by Safdar Iqbal Gondal
Citation: [2026] FWC 3340
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant sought a remedy for unfair deactivation from Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd, trading as Uber. He claimed his account was deactivated on 30 May 2026. the Respondent argued the Applicant did not meet the criteria to be protected from unfair deactivation under the Fair Work Act, as he hadn't used the digital platform for at least six months prior to deactivation. Records show the Applicant last performed work on the Uber Driver Platform on 28 August 2025.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s application. The Commission found he was not protected from unfair deactivation because he hadn't performed work on the platform regularly for at least six months before his deactivation. The decision was made 'on the papers' without a conference or hearing. The Commission relied on previous decisions, emphasizing the requirement of continuous work for six months immediately preceding deactivation.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital platforms must carefully track employee activity and ensure they meet the six-month regular work requirement for unfair deactivation protections. Inactive periods can jeopardize this protection. Maintaining accurate records of work performed is crucial.
What it means for employees
Employees using digital platforms need to be aware of the six-month regular work requirement to be protected from unfair deactivation. Extended periods of inactivity can remove this protection, even if they intend to return to work.
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/2026fwc3340.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. 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 today sorted? A Day Pass is 25 questions over 24 hours. No account, nothing to cancel.
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