//
[134]
[2026] FWC 217
General information, not legal advice.
Fair Work Commission
2026-01-23
Original judgment source is linked above.
s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy
Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - applicant was protected from unfair deactivation - complaints of dangerous driving - Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code applied - deactivation not consistent with the Code - deactivation not unfair - application dismissed
[1] Abdelkarim Salih Abdalla commenced performing work as a driver through the Uber Driver Platform in 2019. On 2 July 2025, Rasier Pacific Pty Limited ("Uber") terminated his access to the Uber Driver Platform following multiple reports from riders that he had driven dangerously.
[4] I find that the deactivation was not consistent with the Code. However, I am not satisfied that the deactivation was unfair. On that basis I have determined to dismiss the application.
[7] The Services Agreement included the following provisions:
(f) When you provide Transportation Services using the Uber Driver App, you must at all times do so safely and in a professional manner with due skill, care, courtesy and diligence. In addition, you must comply with the Community Guidelines and other Policies, and all laws that regulate or apply to you as a provider of point to point transport. ...
(b) Uber may also immediately restrict or remove your access to the Uber Driver App, and provide you with written notice of the restriction or removal, if:
(i) you commit a material breach of this Agreement; or
(ii) an act or omission by you, in Uber's reasonable judgment, is: (a) in breach of applicable Laws; (b) in violation of the Community Guidelines or any other Policy; or (c) creates a risk to health and safety of yourself or others, including in relation to fatigue."
Being out on the road means doing your part to help keep yourself and others safe. This means keeping your eyes on the road and being well rested, so you can quickly react to any situation. The law requires you to drive safely and this includes assessing your level of fatigue prior to logging on, and throughout your driving time. Other activities you may have been doing during the day or night can contribute to fatigue. Remember, the only true preventative measure against fatigue is sleep. We review reports of crashes and potentially unsafe driving behaviour.
Everyone is responsible for knowing and obeying all applicable laws, including relevant health directions, airport rules and regulations when at the airport, and the rules of the road - including complying with traffic laws, signs and signals - at all times when using the Uber Marketplace Platform.
...We review reports of crashes or traffic citations that may have happened during a trip or delivery, and other reports, including but not limited to those that may indicate poor, unsafe or distracted driving. ..."
Losing access to the Uber Marketplace Platform may be disruptive to your life or to your business. That's why we believe it is important to have clear standards that explain the circumstances in which you may lose access to the Uber Marketplace Platform. If you violate any applicable terms of your contractual agreement with Uber, or any other applicable policies, any one of these Community Guidelines or any additional policies and standards that are communicated by Uber to you from time to time, you can lose access to all or part of the Uber Marketplace Platform. ..."
[9] In his oral evidence, Mr Abdalla confirmed that he was aware of the terms of the Services Agreement and the Community Guidelines.
[10] The deactivation was brought about as a result of seven complaints that Uber received between 25 September 2024 and 22 June 2025 regarding Mr Abdalla. Each complaint was from a rider who had booked a trip through the Uber Driver Platform, and related to Mr Abdalla's driving.
"Driver stated he bad. Ben [sic - had been?] driving for 11 hours. He was veering between lanes and speeding. He was actually falling asleep while driving in the tunnel"
"hi abdelkarim salih, one of your riders let us know that your driving seemed impaired on a recent trip. to better understand the situation, we wanted to ask if you're able to provide any additional context or details as to why a rider may have reported this. the safety of both riders and driver-partners using the uber app is our top priority. as a reminder, uber prohibits drivers from being drowsy, tired, or falling asleep while driving on the uber app. further feedback of this nature may result in the permanent deactivation of your account. please let us know if you have any questions." (Reproduced verbatim)
"He didn't stick to the speed limit and he was all over the road in and out of lanes over taking people." (Reproduced verbatim)
"hi abdelkarim salih, one of your riders let us know that they felt you were driving dangerously on a recent trip. we wanted to share this feedback with you and emphasise the importance of safe driving. uber driver‐partners are expected to comply with all local traffic laws while using the driver app. as explained in our community guidelines, serious or repeated reports of poor, unsafe, or distracted driving can result in permanent deactivation of partner's account. we take the safety and well‐being of all users seriously, so we hope you understand our position. thank you for understanding." (Reproduced verbatim)
"did not pull over without prompting by passengers for an ambulance with lights and sirens on behind us \n-did not stop at all at a stop sign, just sped through the intersection\n-erratic driving (speeding up/slowing down abruptly, driving above the speed limit, cyclists/pedestrians needing to jump out of the way" (Reproduced verbatim)
"Also, he was speedind [sic] too much. On the road for 70, he was on 94. I was really scared."
This is [name redacted by Uber] from the Community Operations Team.
A rider has provided feedback that they felt you were driving dangerously on a recent trip on February 20th, 2025, which is a breach of Uber's Community Guidelines.
If you disagree with this feedback and have any information to share with us, please do so by replying to this message and our specialised team will take it into account.
Anyone who accesses the Uber app is required to follow our Community Guidelines. Serious or repeated claims of dangerous driving or reports of poor, unsafe or distracted driving may result in the removal of your access to the Driver app."
"He was literally speeding, it was so fast that I couldn't even able to get my seat belt on, it took me so long to stay straight on the seat to put the belt on. And the whole time is just non stop and speeding, I was so sick after this ride, and I want to vomit" (Reproduced verbatim)
"The driver was constantly speeding in the wet and i felt unsafe. I asked why he was speeding, and ignored me twice hence my 1 star rating. I would like a full refund." (Reproduced verbatim)
"Horrendous. Swerving, speeding, braking like he was in a Fast & Furious audition. I was holding onto the seat for dear life." (Reproduced verbatim)
[25] Mr Abdalla did not respond to the messages that Uber sent him on 26 September 2024, 17 November 2024 and 23 November 2024, or to any of the First to Fourth Warnings. He did not dispute that they had been sent to him, but stated that he did not see them at the time.
"Preliminary deactivation notice: Your account is at risk of deactivation
You're receiving this message because a review of your account found that you have previously been reported for multiple instances of driving dangerously on a recent trips [sic], which is a direct violation of your agreement with Uber and we are considering terminating your access to the Uber Driver app.
Please note that when we were made aware of these previous reports, we also made sure to notify you, these were sent on the following dates:
June 21st, 2025: Notified you of a report that they felt you were driving dangerously on a recent trip that occurred on a trip on June 21st, 2025.
March 22nd, 2025: Notified you of a report that they felt you were driving dangerously on a recent trip that occurred on a trip on March 22nd, 2025.
March 13th, 2025: Notified you of a report that they felt you were driving dangerously on a recent trip that occurred on a trip on March 13th, 2025.
Feb 19th, 2025: Notified you of a report that they felt you were driving dangerously on a recent trip that occurred on a trip on Feb 19th, 2025.
November 23rd, 2024: Notified you of a report that they felt you were driving dangerously on a recent trip that occurred on a trip on November 23rd, 2024.
November 17th, 2024: Notified you of a report that they felt you were driving dangerously on a recent trip that occurred on a trip on November 17th, 2024.
September 24th, 2024: Notified you of a report that they felt you were drowsy driving on a recent trip that occurred on a trip on September 24th, 2024.
You should be able to find these in the Messages section of the Uber Driver app. You may also find other safety related notifications we have sent you in the past.
Reports of behaviour of this nature extremely concerning and are in violation of our Uber Community Guidelines, before a final decision is made, we are providing you with the opportunity to respond to this preliminary deactivation notice. During this period, we have suspended your access to the platform...
Respond to this Notice: You may provide an explanation or relevant information regarding the flagged activity. Please respond using the link below within 7 days from the date of this notice to ensure your input is considered.
Request a Discussion: You may also request a discussion with a representative of Uber Eats [sic]. If you wish to do so, please submit your request using the link below within 2 days.
"I have received and read the email and I have a had to reflect on my actions and hope to work for uber again soon. A good number of my reports are from 2024 and I have thousands of trips on uber and this email I have receive and taken in those words and will also apply myself to do better than before." (Reproduced verbatim)
"sorry late reply on complaining has been made one of riders regarding my way of driving \nfirst of all i have been driving with uber than six years and i'm aware of safety requirements of ride share i am not such person to put myself and riders in danger please reconsider your restrictions of my account based on one part complaint.\nnow i don't have any income to feed my family and pay my bills" (Reproduced verbatim)
After carefully reviewing your account and the information you submitted as part of your response, we've decided to terminate your access to the Uber Driver app for the reasons outlined in the preliminary deactivation notice previously sent to you. This decision is final.
This deactivation will take effect immediately upon receipt of this email."
(3) whether the deactivation was consistent with the Code.
[32] There was no controversy about the first two matters. I find that:
(1) Mr Abdalla filed his application on 13 July 2025, twelve days after his deactivation. That was within the statutory time period; and
(2) Mr Abdalla was a person protected from unfair deactivation, as he was an employee-like worker who performed work through or by means of Uber's digital platform, and who had been doing so on a regular basis for a period of at least six months at the time of his deactivation.
[34] For the reasons which follow, I find that the deactivation was not consistent with the Code.
(1) specify the reason for the warning (relating to the worker's conduct or capacity);
(2) state that the worker risks being deactivated from the digital labour platform if the reason for the warning is not remedied or repeated, or another conduct or capacity issue arises; and
(3) state that the worker may seek assistance or support from a person (other than a lawyer acting in a professional capacity).
[37] Uber submitted that the First to Fourth Warnings met the requirements of section 8 of the Code. I do not agree.
[38] The complaints that gave rise to each of the First to Fourth Warnings were reasonably specific as to the conduct in which Mr Abdalla was said to have engaged. However, each of the warnings referred only to "feedback" that a driver "felt" that he had been "driving dangerously on a recent trip". The specifics of the complaints were not provided. The only detail the warnings included was the date on which the trip took place, although not even that was provided in the Second Warning. For someone who had done more than 13,600 trips through the Uber Driver Platform, I cannot see how helpful the date alone would have been for Mr Abdalla. The invitation in each warning that Mr Abdalla reply if he disagreed with the "feedback" was a hollow one.
"The Respondent submits that it wishes to ensure the privacy of users of the Uber Driver Platform by ensuring information regarding the identity of those users leaving reports is protected. The content of the Deactivation Warnings, Preliminary Deactivation Notice and Final Deactivation Notice is a reflection of the Respondent protecting the privacy of the Riders while at the same time providing sufficient information to the Applicant of the concerns with his conduct and the consequences of misconduct."
[41] There are two points to make about these submissions. First, the details of the complaints could not themselves have disclosed the identity of the rider. What each rider complained about could have been put to Mr Abdalla without fear of breaching the rider's privacy. Second, the privacy of riders cannot be the only consideration. There must be a balance which reflects that drivers should be able to properly respond to complaints and to protect their livelihood.
[42] In the circumstances, I fail to see how any of the First to Fourth Warnings included sufficient information to enable a reasonable person in Mr Abdalla's position to understand the reason for which each warning was being issued. It follows that I am not satisfied Uber complied with the requirements of section 8 of the Code.
Uber's reliance (in the alternative) on the exception in section 9 of the Code
[44] The obvious difficulty for Uber is that it did issue what it relied on as being compliant deactivation warnings. Each of the First to Fourth Warnings anticipated that Mr Abdalla would continue to work as a driver through the Uber Driver Platform. Uber obviously did not consider that the matters alleged against Mr Abdalla warranted the immediate modification or suspension of his access to the platform or that it was not reasonable to expect it to allow him to continue to perform work through the platform.
[45] I am not satisfied that Uber established that the exception in section 9 of the Code applies.
(1) whether there was a valid reason for the deactivation related to Mr Abdalla's capacity or conduct; and
(2) whether any relevant processes specified in the Code were followed; and
(1) In cases relating to alleged conduct, the Commission must make a finding, on the evidence provided, whether, on the balance of probabilities, the conduct occurred.
(2) It is not enough for a digital labour platform operator to establish that it had a reasonable belief that the worker engaged in particular conduct.
(3) The digital labour platform operator bears the evidentiary onus of proving that the conduct on which it relies took place.
(5) It is necessary to consider whether the digital labour platform operator had a valid reason for the deactivation of the employee-like worker, although it need not be the reason given to the worker at the time of the deactivation.
(6) A "valid" reason for deactivation is one that is "sound, defensible or well founded" and not "capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced." A reason that is "valid" will involve something more than a minor failing or trivial misdemeanour, and must be of sufficient gravity or seriousness to justify deactivation.
[48] The final deactivation notice informed Mr Abdalla that Uber had "decided to terminate [his] access to the Uber Driver app for the reasons outlined in the preliminary deactivation notice". The preliminary deactivation notice referred to Mr Abdalla having "previously been reported for multiple instances of driving dangerously".
"No police reports, traffic infringement notices, dashcam evidence, or third-party verification has been presented. If unsafe driving of the severity alleged had occurred, some external authority (police, RMS, traffic cameras) would likely have issued a notice or taken action. The absence of such evidence undermines the validity of the claims."
[50] However, the lack of independent verification does not mean that the complaints are necessarily false. Further, a complaint need not have been escalated to the police or other regulatory body for Uber to accept it as true.
[52] Mr Abdalla stated that when he received the preliminary deactivation notice, he checked his account to locate the complaints to which it referred. It is noteworthy, then, that his response to the preliminary deactivation notice did not dispute the veracity of the complaints. Rather, he said that he had had to "reflect on [his] actions" having "taken in those words" and that he would "apply [himself] to do better than before". Similarly, nothing in the message he sent to Uber on 26 June 2025 directly (if at all) challenged the complaints.
"The Respondent has processes in place that evaluate the veracity of complaints made by users of the Uber Driver Platform. This includes assessing whether a complainant has a pattern of bad faith reporting, referred to as 'fraudulent indicators'. When the Respondent conducted a review of each of the following complaints made against the Applicant, no fraudulent indicators were identified on behalf of the relevant complainants."
[56] While not conclusive, the lack of "fraudulent indicators" lends further credibility to the complaints.
[57] There is also some corroborative evidence in relation to the complaint made on 23 November 2024. Ms Fairlie provided a screenshot from "Chronicle", the system that Uber uses to record trip details and data. That record showed that the rider had booked a trip from Glebe to Manly in Sydney, but had cancelled the trip at Millers Point (a suburb some distance from Manly). The rider made their complaint shortly after the trip ended.
"I do remember this. The passengers, they were couple like two man and woman. They asked like halfway, they asked for this - to drop them on halfway. I don't know the reason, but they said, 'Drop us here', and I did."
[59] Having regard to all of the evidence, I am satisfied that Mr Abdalla engaged in the behaviour claimed in each of the seven complaints on which Uber relied. That behaviour was in breach of the Services Agreement, as a result of contravening both clause 5.1(f) of that agreement and the Community Guidelines.
[61] For these reasons, I am satisfied that Uber has provided a sound, defensible or well founded reason for Mr Abdalla's deactivation. I find that there was a valid reason for the deactivation.
[62] I have determined already that Uber failed to comply with section 8 of the Code.
[63] I am mindful that Mr Abdalla performed work through the Uber Driver Platform for more than six years. He had completed 13,601 trips and had a 4.54 star rating. These matters stand in his favour.
"Even if accepted at face value, the reports describe minor dissatisfaction - not reckless or criminal behaviour. There is no evidence I endangered passengers or breached road laws."
[65] This submission reveals a disturbing lack of insight by Mr Abdalla into his conduct. Speeding and failing to stop at stop signs are breaches of the road rules. They can place Mr Abdalla, his passengers and other road users in danger, as does driving fatigued. To describe the complaints as expressing "minor dissatisfaction" ignores not only the terms of the complaints but also the conduct they describe.
[66] Mr Abdalla's evidence and submissions traversed at length what he asserted were the procedural shortcomings in the process resulting in his deactivation. These included inadequate warnings, deficiencies in the preliminary deactivation notice, not being given a genuine opportunity to respond, and a failure by Uber to properly consider his response and conduct further investigations before making a final decision.
[67] I accept that the First to Fourth warnings were inadequate, for the reasons I have outlined. However, Mr Abdalla cannot have been prejudiced by that at the time they were issued, as he did not see them until after he received the preliminary deactivation notice. But this is not something for which Uber bears any responsibility. It is clear that the warnings were sent to Mr Abdalla. It appears that he did not check his account.
[69] In this context, I do not accept that Mr Abdalla did not have a proper opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. I also do not accept that Uber failed to properly consider his response before making its decision. To Uber's knowledge, Mr Abdalla had been informed in writing of seven complaints against him, which included him being provided with the First to Fourth Warnings. Mr Abdalla had not responded to those complaints or warnings, much less challenged them. His messages sent on 23 and 26 June 2025, after he received the preliminary deactivation notice, said nothing to suggest that he did so then. There was no apparent reason for Uber to undertake further investigations.
[71] There was a valid reason for Mr Abdalla's deactivation. While Uber failed to comply with the processes specified in the Code, it did not result in a demonstrable lack of procedural fairness for Mr Abdalla. Even having regard to Mr Abdalla's period of service as a driver through the Uber Driver Platform, the number of trips he completed and his rating, the deactivation was not a disproportionate response to Mr Abdalla's behaviour.
[72] I find that Mr Abdalla's deactivation on 2 July 2025 was not unfair.
[1] In this decision, unless otherwise stated, all references to legislation are to provisions of the Act
[3] The Services Agreement is Annexure A to Mr Abdalla's submissions in chief and Annexure A to the Statement of Emilee Fairlie dated 10 September 2025
[4] Annexure B to Mr Abdalla's submissions in chief; Annexure B to the Statement of Emilee Fairlie
[5] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure E
[6] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure F
[7] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure G
[8] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure H
[9] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure I
[10] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure L
[11] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure M
[12] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure N
[13] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure O
[14] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure P
[15] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure Q
[16] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure R
[17] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure S
[18] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure T
[19] Annexure D to Mr Abdalla's submissions in chief; Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure V
[20] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure X
[21] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure W
[22] Exhibit D to Mr Abdalla's submissions; Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure Q
[26] Within the meaning of section 536LD
[32] Closing Submissions of the Applicant, par 5
[33] Respondent's Outline of Submissions, 10 September 2025, par 26
[34] Respondent's Outline of Submissions, par 11
[38] Closing Submissions of the Applicant, par 9
[39] Respondent's Outline of Submissions, par 35
[40] Applicant's Response to the Respondent's Submissions, Part 3
[41] Closing Submissions of the Applicant, par 10
[42] Annexure D to Mr Abdalla's submissions in chief; Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure W
[44] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, par 9
[46] Closing Submissions of the Applicant, par 20
[47] Statement of Emilee Fairlie, Annexure U
[48] Applicant's Response to the Respondent's Submissions, Part 3
[50] Closing Submissions of the Applicant, par 16
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Abdelkarim Salih Abdalla
Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 217
(1936) 60 CLR 336