s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - out of time - no exceptional circumstances - application dismissed

• [1] Abdul Kalam was deactivated from the Uber digital platform operated by Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (Uber) on 26 March 2017 because of low customer ratings. Mr Kalam filed an application for an unfair deactivation remedy on 14 September 2025. The application was filed more than eight years after Mr Kalam was deactivated. Mr Kalam was also deactivated around seven years prior to when the unfair deactivation laws commenced operating.

• [2] A hearing was held in relation to whether Mr Kalam should be granted an extension of time to file his application on 29 October 2025. During the hearing, Uber helpfully agreed to take Mr Kalam's case to an internal review panel to consider whether Mr Kalam's account should be reactivated. Uber confirmed on 4 November 2025 that the panel had decided Mr Kalam's account should not be reactivated.

• [3] Later in the day on 4 November 2025, an email was sent from my chambers to the parties indicating that my provisional view was that I would not grant Mr Kalam an extension of time for the filing of his application. The email referred to Mr Kalam's application not having any prospects of success because his deactivation occurred prior to when the unfair deactivation laws commenced operating. The email indicated Mr Kalam could raise any concerns with my provisional view by 5pm on 7 November 2025 and stated that I intended to finalise my decision based on the material filed, without holding a further hearing. Mr Kalam did not respond to the email.

• [4] I confirm my decision to not grant an extension of time for Mr Kalam to file his unfair deactivation application. I have considered each factor in s.536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 and do not consider any of the factors weigh in favour of finding there are exceptional circumstances. There is no utility in granting Mr Kalam an extension of time to file his application because he was not a person protected from unfair deactivation back in 2017 when he was deactivated. Mr Kalam is not protected by the laws he is trying to utilise.

• [5] I decline to grant Mr Kalam an extension of time. Mr Kalam's application is dismissed.

• [6] I encourage Uber to reconsider its position not to reactivate Mr Kalam's account. Mr Kalam presents as a genuine person who drives for his occupation and is currently unable to perform work on Uber's platform. The current situation is having a substantial impact on Mr Kalam's earnings which in turn makes it difficult for him to support his family. There is no suggestion that Mr Kalam ever engaged in misconduct while working for Uber. The sole reason for Mr Kalam's deactivation was a low driver rating. Uber stated during the hearing that Mr Kalam had a rating of 4.35 out of 5 and it is normal for drivers to have a rating above 4.9 out of 5. A rating of 4.35 out of 5 or 87% does not present as particularly bad, even if other drivers normally receive higher ratings. There must also be a significant potential for drivers to receive a low rating through no fault of their own and for unjust reasons. In any event, Mr Kalam has been performing other driving work since 2017, it is highly likely his performance has improved over the last 8 years.

Ms J Leeds from Dentons Australia Limited with Ms L Tierney representing Uber with permission.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer