//
[101]
[2026] FWC 365
General information, not legal advice.
Fair Work Commission
2026-02-05
Original judgment source is linked above.
s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy
Unfair deactivation - objection that Respondent complied with Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code) Instrument 2024 (the Code) - whether a valid reason for deactivation based on more than one report or complaint - exception whether deactivation warning not required per s (9)(2) of Code - valid reason established per ss 13(9)(c) and 14(4) of Code - compliance with Code found - application dismissed.
[1] On 13 August 2025, Mr Ahmed Yusuf Mohammed (Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair deactivation remedy pursuant to s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). He commenced working as a driver with Uber Eats, a related entity of the Respondent in June 2020. He started driving with the Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (the Respondent or Uber) from February 2024 until he was deactivated on 26 July 2025. Uber deactivated his account because it received five separate complaints from users that Mr Mohammed was engaging in abusive and discriminatory behaviour contrary to its requirements.
[2] His applications seeks that the Commission make an order that his access to the Uber driver App be reinstated and he be paid compensation for lost earnings. In support of his application, he argues that the complaints against him are false and that no evidence has been provided to support the accusations against him.
[3] Mr Mohammed was an "employee-like" worker for the purposes of section 15P of the FW Act and Uber is a "digital labour platform operator' within the meaning of section 15M of the Act. Mr Mohammed is, therefore, a person protected from unfair deactivation.
[4] Section 536LF of the Act provides that a protected person has been unfairly deactivated if each of the following three requirements are met:
a) The person has been deactivated from a digital labour platform; and
b) The deactivation was unfair; and
c) The deactivation was not consistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code.
[5] In the present case, it is not in dispute, and I am satisfied that Mr Mohammed had his account deactivated by the Respondent on 26th July 2025. It is also uncontroversial that Mr Mohammed was earning below the contractor high income threshold at the time he was deactivated and can bring this application (s.536LU).
[6] Mr Mohammed filed his application with the Commission on the 14th of August 2025. I am satisfied this is within the timeframe required. It is not in dispute, and I am satisfied, Mr Mohammed is an employee like worker protected from unfair deactivation within the meaning of s.536LD.
[7] Section 536LW of the Act requires that I deal with some initial matters before considering the merits of the application as follows:
a) whether the application was made within the period required in subsection 536LU(3);
b) whether the Applicant was protected from unfair deactivation within the meaning of subsection 536LD; and
[8] Uber's primary position is that Mr Mohammed's deactivation was consistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code (the Code). On this basis, they argue the Commission does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of his application and it must be dismissed. If the Commission finds the Code has not been complied with, Uber's alternative position is that Mr Mohammed was deactivated for a valid reason that was not unfair.
[9] On 12 November 2025, I conducted a hearing, in advance of which both parties filed material in accordance with my directions. Mr Mohammed appeared at the hearing and gave sworn evidence with the assistance of a FWC appointed interpreter and his nephew, Mr Ame, who acted as his representative. The Respondent was represented by Ms Murray-Baptista who was granted leave to appear. Ms Laura Tierney, Uber's Industrial Relations Lead, gave sworn evidence in support of the Respondent's position.
[10] The questions I need to determine in this case are firstly, whether Mr Mohammed's deactivation was consistent with the Code. If I am satisfied this is the case, his application must be dismissed by virtue of the above provisions. If I am not so satisfied, I must next consider whether his application was unfair relevant to the criteria required by s.536LH. My consideration of these questions is set out below.
[11] Mr Mohammed accepts that on commencing working for Uber he signed and agreed to the terms of the Raiser Pacific Services Agreement. He also accepts that under the terms of this agreement, the Respondent has a right and the sole discretion to deactivate to restrict his access to Uber Services in the event of any violation of Uber's policies, including the Uber Community Guidelines. He does not accept that he violated Uber's Community Guidelines and believes he was unfairly deactivated because his deactivation was not consistent with the requirements of the Code.
[12] In particular, he submits he was not provided a clear or valid justification for his deactivation and that Uber failed to present any credible or reasonable evidence to substantiate the allegations against him. Adding further, that he was not provided access to a fair appeal process and that his request for supporting evidence and an independent investigation into the allegations against him have been ignored.
[13] On 17th July 2025, Mr Mohammed accepts he received a preliminary deactivation notice informing him Uber was considering terminating his access to the Uber driver app because he had been reported for multiple instances of verbal altercations in violation of his agreement with them and the Uber Community Guidelines. He accepts this correspondence advised him the details of these reports included that:
[14] Mr Mohammed was not provided any further information or specific details of the above incidents or the alleged complainant. He does not argue that he did not receive these notifications. His position is that he responded to each of Uber's notifications and made it clear that he did not engage in the conduct alleged. He argues that these notifications, without corroborating evidence, cannot form the basis of a valid reason for him to be deactivated.
[15] Uber's evidence is that all the evidence of the complaints it received from riders, the information provided to Mr Mohammed and the response he provided in reply have been included in the material presented to the Commission. This evidence indicates, Mr Mohammed only replied to 2 of the notifications he received. Mr Mohammed accepted this to be the case in proceedings, maintaining, however, that he did reply.
[16] On the 17th of July, Uber sent Mr Mohammed a preliminary deactivation notice and immediately suspended his access to the Uber driver app. This notification advised him plainly how he could go about responding to the notification within 7 days. It also informed him he could request a further discussion with an Uber representative and was entitled to be supported or legally represented through the process it commenced.
[17] Mr Mohammed responded to the notice on the day it was received as follows:
"...thank you for your message. I was extremely surprised and deeply saddened to hear that my account being considered for termination. I'd like to appreciate your consideration of giving me chance to respond to this email. I have been driving uber over 5years and completed over 22780 trips. My current rating is 4.88. And out of my last 500 trips 479 is 5 stars [heart emoji]. I believe this could help you understand how committed I am to providing excellent, respectful and professional service as much as possible with great pride and happiness. English is not my first language and I know sometimes this may lead to misunderstandings, but I always stay calm and handle every situation with patience and care. I do not speak in a rude or abuse way to anyone. Like I said customer may find my limit of understanding of English as rude. Some if not all customers do not like my name (Ahmed) but not say out laud (sic) to me. I love part of the uber platform and helping people travel safely. I am respectful to all my customers like I said earlier. This job means a lot to m.i (sic) love to continue driving and continue to be the best driver that ever. Please take time to review this matter and get me back on the road as soon as possible as this is my only jobs I rely on. You can also look for reasons I have made to the raised points in the past regarding customer complaints or resolved matters in the past you try to mention. I look forward to hearing from you soon and get me back in the road sooner."
[18] Later the same day, Uber responded to Mr Mohammed's requests that its preliminary account deactivation decision be reviewed. Uber's communication confirmed this would be the case and that he could expect to know the outcome of his review within 7-10 days, further advising him to request a discussion if he had not already done so and wanted to engage with an Uber representative.
[19] On the 24th of July, Mr Mohammed wrote to Uber again as set out below:
"Hi this is Ahmed. I've recently been made aware of some complaints; however, I did not receive any messages or emails regarding them. I sincerely apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused. I am committed to addressing any concerns and improving moving forward. I would appreciate it if the process could proceed, and I look forward to hearing from you soon."
[20] Uber responded to Mr Mohammed the same day restating its previous advice. On 26th of July, Mr Mohammed received the outcome of the review and was advised that Uber had decided to terminate his access to the Uber driver app for the reasons outlined in the preliminary deactivation notice.
[21] Mr Mohammed submits he was shocked and disappointed by this decision. As the sole income earner in his family, his evidence is that this decision placed him under significant financial distress. In response, with his limited English skills and understanding of his rights he sought the advice and assistance of family and friends. On 13th August, he again wrote to Uber and requested a secondary review of its deactivation decision requesting his account be reactivated. The following day a member of Uber's team contacted Mr Mohammed and confirmed they would look into his deactivation further and that he could expect a response within 7-10 days. On 27th August, Uber confirmed it would not be reactivating Mr Mohammed's account because based on its review he had not provided any further information since his last review request.
[22] Mr Mohammed maintains his position that he did not engage in the conduct alleged and that he has not been provided any evidence to suggest this is not the case. Further arguing Uber has denied him procedural fairness by not conducted a proper investigation into the allegations against him. On this basis, he maintains he has been unfairly deactivated and should be reinstated.
[23] Mr Mohammed gave sworn evidence to the Commission with the assistance of an Oromo interpreter. In evidence, he accepted that he had agreed to the terms of the Respondent's Service Agreement and understood he was expected to comply with its Community Guidelines. He maintains he emailed a response to each notification he received from the Respondent but accepts these were not provided to the Commission. I am satisfied that Mr Mohammed clearly has challenges with English. I am satisfied, however, that his understanding of what Uber expected of him and communicated to him was sufficient. The fact he was able to engage with Uber and respond to the notices the way he did, support this conclusion.
[24] Uber's primary position is that it has complied with the Code.
[25] Regarding section 8 of the Code, Uber submits it complied with these requirements by giving Mr Mohammed notice he was at risk of deactivation for his conduct and failure to meet Uber's service standards and Community Guidelines on the 29th of October and 18 November 2024; and 17 June, 27 June and 11 July 2025.
[26] Uber's position is these warnings made it clear to Mr Mohammed that Uber believed he had engaged in discriminatory and verbally abusive behaviour inconsistent with Uber's Community Guidelines and that he needed to improve.
[27] Because Mr Mohammed's behaviour did not improve and Uber continued to receive reports from users that he was engaging in discriminatory and verbally abusive behaviour, Uber submits it was entitled to commence the deactivation process outlined in Division 3 of the Code. Further supporting this position, Uber submits it had reasonable ground to consider deactivating Mr Mohammed's account because:
a) he was aware of the importance of appropriate behaviour while performing work on the Uber driver app because of warnings he had been provided and the Community Guidelines and driver agreement he signed.
b) There was a recurring pattern of complaints against Mr Mohammed for discriminatory and verbally abusive behaviour.
[28] In terms of section 11 of the Code, Uber identifies its preliminary deactivation notice was consistent with the Code's requirements in that it made Mr Mohammed aware of the reasons for the notice (the complaints made against him); and that Uber was considering deactivating his access to the app, that he had a right to respond, to request a meeting and to be supported and/or legally represented.
[29] With regards to section 12 of the Code, Uber maintains its preliminary deactivation notice was consistent with these requirements and that it afforded Mr Mohammed the opportunity to respond to its preliminary decision and consider his response complying with Section 13.
[30] Uber submits is consideration of Mr Mohammed's response was conducted by a human member of its team. This team member's evidence, however, was not made available to the Commission.
[31] In its absence, Ms Tierney's evidence is the Respondent formed a considered view on reasonable grounds that Mr Mohammed had been sufficiently warned about complaints about his conduct. That Uber continued to receive reports from users that he was engaging in discriminatory and verbally abusive behaviour. And because of these things Uber had a valid reason for deactivating Mr Mohammed's account, because:
[32] Ms Tierney's evidence is that Uber has complied with the requirements of the Code in making its decision to deactivate Mr Mohammed's account and communicating this to him. Ms Tierney also explained that Uber has processes in place to assess the veracity of complaints made by users which includes assessing whether the complainant has a pattern of bad faith reporting, referring to fraudulent indicators. When reviewing complaints made in relation Mr Mohammed, she gave evidence that no fraudulent indicators were identified. I found Ms Tierney's evidence clear and considered and I accept it to be an accurate version of what in fact has occurred.
[33] Uber accepts it has not provided Mr Mohammed with specifics of the users who have complained about his conduct and the particulars of their complaints. Their position is that this decision has been made to protect the privacy of users and their personal information, while at the same time providing Mr Mohammed with sufficient information about their concerns with this conduct and the consequences if his conduct did not improve.
"...whether the reason is valid in the sense of being "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. This is a question of characterisation, not proof. The Commission's role under the Code is to evaluate whether the reason being relied on by the operator for deactivation meets this standard of being a "valid reason", rather than to determine whether the alleged conduct occurred." (footnotes omitted)
[35] In the present case, Uber's submissions are that it had a valid reason for Mr Mohammed's deactivation because:
[36] As identified above, I must first determine whether Uber's decision to deactivate Mr Mohammed's account was consistent with the Code or not. Considering all the evidence and submissions in this case, I am satisfied that the requirements of the Code have been met. The reasons for this finding are set out below.
[37] Section 8 of the Code requires a deactivation warning to be provided before deactivation. The deactivation must contain several matters prescribed by the Code, including specifying the reason for the warning related to the workers capacity or conduct, making clear the worker is at risk of deactivation, and advising the worker they may seek assistance. The warning must include sufficient information to enable a reasonable person to understand it's terms.
[38] Uber contends it provided Mr Mohammed 5 separate warnings that he risked being deactivated in the period between 29th October 2024 and 11 July 2025. The details of these warnings were provided to the Commission. I have considered each. Notably, not one of these warning sought to make it clear in explicit terms to Mr Mohammed that he may seek assistance from a support person (other than a lawyer acting in a professional capacity) (Section 8(2)(c)).
[40] Uber submitted that in the event I was not satisfied the requirements of section 8 of the Code had been met, the exceptions provided for by sections 9(1) and (2) of the Code should apply. Section 9(1) provides a digital labour platform operator is not required to give an employee like worker a deactivation warning before deactivating, if the operator considers on reasonable grounds that the matter relating to the worker's capacity or conduct is such that it warrants immediate modification or suspension; or it is not reasonable to expect the operator to allow the worker to continue to perform work. Section 9(2) provides that one or more reports or complaints made to the platform operator may constitute reasonable grounds for the operator's opinion about the worker's capacity or conduct.
[41] I have considered the detail of the 5 complaints Uber received from Users about Mr Mohammed's conduct. These complaints related to transphobic jokes, verbal abuse, discrimination and inappropriate, threatening and aggressive language and behaviour. While I accept Mr Mohammed's submissions that he did not engage in the conduct that has been alleged, it is not in dispute that he was made aware of the complaints and reports made against him. The evidence clearly establishes this to be the case. The evidence also establishes that Mr Mohammed took the opportunity to respond to some of these allegations and that he was invited to provided further information to support his position.
[42] This being the case, I am satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for Uber to form the view that Mr Mohammed's conduct enlivened the exception provided for by Section 9 of the Code. Uber had received repeated complaints about Mr Mohammed's conduct over a short period of time. The complaints were serious in nature and presented the basis for legitimate concerns about the health and safety of passengers and the reputation of the business. In the repeated circumstances, I am satisfied they warranted immediate suspension of his access to the platform, and it was not in my view reasonable to allow Mr Mohammed to continue to perform work while an investigation was conducted.
[43] Section 11 of the Code requires that the digital labour platform operator provide the worker with a preliminary deactivation notice specifying, among other things, the reason relating to the conduct or capacity of the worker why consideration is being given to terminate their access to the platform. The notice must also advise the worker they have a right to respond, a right to request a discussion, appoint a representative and include sufficient information to enable a reasonable person to understand it's terms.
[44] Uber provided Mr Mohammed with a preliminary deactivation notice on the 17th of July. Considering the terms of the notice provided, I am satisfied that the requirements of subsection 11 of the Code has been met.
Modification or suspension of access to the platform
[45] Section 12 of the Code provides that if an employee like worker's access to the platform is suspended at the same time as the preliminary deactivation notice is given, the worker must be notified in writing as to the time and day from which the suspension takes effect and the consequences of this as part of the preliminary deactivation notice. In the present matter, this is what occurred when Mr Mohammed was provided a copy of the preliminary deactivation notice on the 17th of July. He was also notified his account was suspended with immediate effect and what this meant. I am, therefore, satisfied the requirements of section 12 of the code are satisfied.
Steps after preliminary deactivation notice is given
[46] Section 13 of the Code provides the right for an employee like worker to respond to a preliminary deactivation notice, to request a meeting and discussions, and be represented for these purposes. It also provides a human representative of the platform operator must consider the employee like worker's response and make further inquiries as are reasonably warranted after considering the worker's response. Section 13(9) provides that where a preliminary deactivation notice is issued after a report or complaint and the workers does not provide a response or does not provide adequate information to address the report or complaint and the Respondent terminates the worker's access to the platform, for the purposes of subsection 14(4) the valid reason for termination that the operator considers on reasonable ground has been established.
[47] Mr Mohammed provided a response to the preliminary deactivation notice on the 17th of July. He did not request a meeting or a discussion with a representative of the Respondent. Uber's evidence is that a member of its team considered Mr Mohammed's responses and subsequent enquiries. And that the member was not satisfied that the explanation and information provided by Mr Mohammed was adequate to address the reports and complaints made about his conduct.
[48] Ms Tierney's evidence is that she has also reviewed the information provided by Mr Mohammed and endorses the decision twice made by a member of Uber's Community Operations Team. I have no reason to discount this evidence. I am satisfied that the requirements of section 13 of the Code have been met.
[49] Section 14 of the Code requires that after complying with the preceding steps, the digital labour platform operator must decide whether to take no further action or terminate the worker's access to the platform. As soon as practicable, the worker must be notified of the decision. If there is a decision to terminate access, the worker must be given a final deactivation notice specifying several prescribed matters.
[50] Mr Mohammed was sent a final deactivation notice by Uber on the 26th of July. The notice stated Uber had decided to terminate his access to the Uber driver app because of the reasons outlined in the preliminary deactivation notice. The notice confirmed this decision was final, would have immediate effect and that any final payments owing to Mr Mohammed would be made in the next pay cycle.
[51] I am satisfied that the final deactivation Mr Mohammed received meets the requirements of section 14 of the Code.
Sufficient information to enable a reasonable person in the person of the employee-like worker to understand the communications
[52] In respect of the requirements of section 8, section 11 and section 14 of the Code, the information provided must contain sufficient information to enable a reasonable person in the position of the employee-like workers to understand the matters required to be included in those communications.
[53] I have considered the detail of the notices provided to Mr Mohammed. I am satisfied that these notices satisfy the requirements set out in the Code. The notices were set out in plain English. They made clear the concerns of the Respondent, their decisions, the consequences for Mr Mohammed, and both what he was required to, and entitled to do. Despite Mr Mohammed's clear challenges with English, the fact that he was able to engage with the preliminary deactivation notice and respond to it reinforces this conclusion
[55] Section 14(4) of the Code provides that a platform operator may terminate an employee-like worker's access to the digital labour platform only if the reason for the termination is a valid reason, and if the operator considers on reasonable grounds that the reason has been established. In this regard, I am guided by the findings of the Deputy President in Kumar as set out above at [34].
[56] Section 19 of the Code sets out examples of what may constitute a valid reason for the deactivation of an employee-like worker. These include failure to meet platform obligations, health and safety matters, the misuse of information, fraud, dishonesty or deliberate damage, a breach of law or regulatory requirements, licensing, accreditation and screening requirements and inactivity. In relation to the failure to meet platform obligations, s 19(2) of the Code says:
"(2) The employee-like worker fails or refuses to meet one or more of the following requirements, to the extent that the requirement is reasonable and is known to the worker as a result of communication from the digital labour platform operator or otherwise:
(a) the requirements of the worker's services contract with the digital labour platform operator;
(b) the conditions of use of the digital labour platform;
(c) the operator's standards or requirements in relation to quality, service level or performance;
(d) the operator's code of conduct for the platform;
(e) any other legally binding requirements on the worker's use of the platform not mentioned in an earlier paragraph of this subsection"
[57] Considering all the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that Uber had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Mohammed engaged in the conduct on which its decision to deactivate his account was based, and that its reason was valid, and related to more than a minor failing or misdemeanour. Several aspects of the conduct he has alleged to have engaged in and his responses, or lack thereof, lead me to this conclusion.
[58] Firstly, the conduct Mr Mohammed is alleged to have engaged in is serious. It is inconsistent with Uber's commitments to respect, dignity, safety and quality service, obligations Mr Mohammed was made aware of and committed to adhere to in entering into his service agreement. For Uber to expect Mr Mohammed to comply with socially acceptable standards of conduct, communication and behaviour was entirely reasonable.
[59] Secondly, Mr Mohammed's conduct seemed to be reoccurring. In the space of 10 months, 5 complaints about the same or similar conduct regarding verbal abuse, discrimination and aggression had been made against him.
[60] Thirdly, when Mr Mohammed responded to either the warnings or preliminary notice of deactivation he failed to engage with the allegations or provide any further information or supporting evidence to justify his version of events. The essence of his response was to attribute blame onto the users and refer to his years of service and record of performance with Uber. Given this failure to engage, I am satisfied that Uber had a reasonable basis to believe that there was substance to the complaints and concerns with Mr Mohammed's conduct.
[61] Finally, I am satisfied that Mr Mohammed was aware of the expectations Uber placed on him to engage and communicate respectfully and professionally with all users. They were made clear to him in several pieces of correspondence, including at commencement and the 5 separate communications he received in the 10 months prior to his deactivation.
[62] Because of these conclusions, I find that Uber's decision to terminate Mr Mohammed's access to its platform was for a valid reason, that it had reasonable grounds to consider were established.
[63] I have considered each of the aspects of the Code relevant to this matter. On the evidence before me, I consider the deactivation of Mr Mohammed's access to the Uber driver app was consistent with the Code. He was, therefore, not unfairly deactivated within the meaning of the Act.
[64] Therefore, his application must be dismissed.
[1] See Rahul Kumar v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2275 and Mohamed v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2337.
[2] [2025] FWC 2275 at [8].
[4] Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code) Instrument 2024 s.15.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer