s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy; deactivation occurred prior to 26 February 2025; less than six months work performed; application dismissed

• [1] On 15 July 2025, Nomaan Ali Mohammed filed an application pursuant to s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) seeking an unfair deactivation remedy. The application concerns Raiser Pacific Pty Ltd T/A Uber Australia (Uber). Mr Mohammed had a digital account operated by Uber in connection with his work as an Uber driver and performed work through or by means of that account.
• [2] Uber objects to the application on the basis it says that Mr Mohammed is not a person protected from unfair deactivation pursuant to Part 3A-3 of the Act because the deactivation of his account did not occur after 26 February 2025. It also claims that Mr Mohammed did not perform work on a regular basis for a period of at least six months and also claims the application was made out of time. Uber seeks that the application be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
• [3] I directed both parties to file and serve material in support of their respective positions in relation to this matter and indicated that, upon receipt of that material, I would advise parties as to whether I considered it could be dealt with on the papers, or whether a hearing was required. When I received the parties' material, I advised I considered that the matter could be dealt with on the basis of what had been filed. Neither party objected to this course of action although Mr Mohammad filed a short additional submission, which I have considered.
• [4] Mr Mohammed began working as an Uber driver from 17 April 2021 until his account was deactivated on 8 August 2024. There is no dispute Mr Mohammad's account was deactivated on 8 August 2024, and he confirmed this to be so.
• [5] Mr Mohammed also confirmed that after 26 August 2024 he did not perform any work of any kind in connection with the account or otherwise as an Uber driver.
• [6] Mr Mohammed said that he had been in direct contact with Uber through their official in-app Help and support system since the day his account was deactivated. He said he submitted multiple requests asking them to review and reinstate his account. Mr Mohammad said that during this period he was waiting for Uber's investigation and decision, genuinely believing the matter would be resolved internally, as they communicated that they were reviewing his case. Mr Mohmmad said that Uber ultimately refused to reinstate his account.
• [7] Mr Mohmmad claims the decision made by Uber to deactivate and then refuse to reinstate his account was "disproportionate and unreasonable". He says the deactivation occurred after an incident in which a passenger inadvertently left identity documents in his vehicle. Upon discovery of these documents, he said he acted promptly, transparently, and entirely in good faith to ensure the safe return of these important documents. He said he used Uber's own in-app communication system for this purpose, and at no stage did he attempt to contact the passenger outside of this system or engage in any conduct contrary to Uber's guidelines. He says he provided Uber with clear and verifiable evidence demonstrating his genuine efforts to contact the passenger solely for the purpose of returning the lost documents and that despite this, Uber refused to accept his explanation and proceeded to block his account. He submitted his conduct was entirely proper, compliant, and motivated by the passenger's best interests and that the blocking of his account in these circumstances lacks procedural fairness and fails to take into account the evidence already available within Uber's own records.
• [8] Mr Mohmmad said he was not aware that he could lodge an application with the Fair Work Commission to challenge his deactivation until recently. He said as soon as he learned about this right, he prepared and submitted his application.

Deactivation occurring prior to 26 February 2025.

• [9] If the deactivation of Mr Mohammed's account occurred prior to 26 February 2025, he is not protected by the unfair deactivation provisions of the Act[1].
• [10] Mr Mohammad confirmed that his account was deactivated on 8 August 2024. He is therefore not protected by the unfair deactivation provisions of the Act.

• [11] Further, Uber claims Mr Mohammed has not performed work on a regular basis for a period of at least six months from 26 August 2024. Section 536LD(c) of the Act provides, in effect that a person is not protected from unfair deactivation if they have not been performing work through or by means of the relevant digital labour platform on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months.
• [12] For Mr Mohammed, this may seem a strange objection because it appears he has worked as an Uber driver since April 2021 - much longer than six months.
• [13] However, the relatively new protection in the Act from unfair deactivation works in such a way that the requirement a person has performed work on a regular basis for at least 6 months only counts time worked after 26 August 2024[2].
• [14] Mr Mohammad confirmed that after 26 August 2024 he did not perform any work of any kind in connection with the account or otherwise as an Uber driver.
• [15] Accordingly, when Mr Mohammad's account was deactivated, he had not been performing work for a period of at least six months, in terms of how that period must be calculated under the provisions of the Act.

• [16] The Commission therefore has no jurisdiction to determine the matter, and this application must be dismissed. An Order[3] will issue to this effect.

[1] Fair Work Act 2009 Schedule 1, cl 124; Bhupinder Singh v Uber T/A Raiser Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 928.

[2] Priyanash Singh Panwar v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1578 [11].

[3] PR790886.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer