Bilal Rasheed [2026] FWC 1191 (8 April 2026)

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - compliance with Code - application dismissed

[1] Bilal Rasheed has made an application for an unfair deactivation remedy under s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). Mr Rasheed contends that his platform deactivation by Portier Pacific Pty Ltd (Uber) was unfair and asks the Commission for a remedy. Based on the evidence of Emilee Fairlie, which I accept, I have concluded that Uber complied with each of the requirements of the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code (Code) and that the application must therefore be dismissed.

[2] First, on 20 June 2025, Uber gave Mr Rasheed a deactivation warning stating that his satisfaction rating was below the minimum average level of 85% and that if he continued to receive ratings below this level his account was at risk of deactivation. At that time, Mr Rasheed's rating was 62%. I find that the deactivation warning met the various requirements of ss 8(1), (2) and (3) of the Code, which I do not recite.

[3] Secondly, on 9 December 2025, Uber gave Mr Rasheed a preliminary deactivation notice that complied with the various requirements of ss 11(1)(a) to (d) and 11(2) of the Code, which I will not rehearse. I note that at the time of the preliminary deactivation notice, Mr Rasheed's approval rating was 77%, well below the minimum level.

[4] Thirdly, I am satisfied that the deactivation process in Division 3 of the Code then applied because Uber had given Mr Rasheed a deactivation warning and considered, on grounds that in my view were reasonable, that the deactivation was justified because Mr Rasheed had not remedied the matters that were the subject of the warning within a reasonable time, and the reason for giving the warning had continued (see s 10 of the Code). Mr Rasheed had continued to receive ratings below the minimum level. Mr Rasheed said that sometime in November 2025 his rating improved to 88%, before dropping to 78%, and that he knew this because he had seen this rating in the app. I accept this. Uber also acknowledged that on 1 November 2025, Mr Rasheed's rating was 85% and that on 15 November it was 86%. But on 30 November it was down to 80%, before dropping to 77% when the preliminary deactivation notice was sent. From 16 November to 8 December 2025 Mr Rasheed received 12 'thumbs down' ratings. The deactivation warning letter did not require Mr Rasheed to obtain a satisfaction rating of 85% on one or more days. It required him to maintain a rating that met the minimum level. The warning stated that if he continued to receive ratings below the threshold, he was at risk of deactivation. It is clear that Mr Rasheed did continue to receive ratings below the threshold. This was the case for most of the period between the deactivation warning and the preliminary deactivation notice.

[5] Fourthly, I find that when Uber suspended Mr Rasheed's access to its platform, it complied with s 12 of the Code, as it had the right to suspend his access, and the preliminary deactivation notice specified the various matters mandated by ss 12(3) and (4).

[6] Fifthly, in my assessment, the steps that Uber took after issuing Mr Rasheed the preliminary deactivation notice met the requirements of s 13 of the Code. These steps included affording Mr Rasheed an opportunity to respond to the preliminary deactivation notice, which he did, and having a human representative consider Mr Rasheed's oral and written responses. In this regard, I note Ms Fairlie's evidence that from her own review of Uber's records, she had ascertained that on 17 December 2025 a member of Uber's community operations team considered Mr Rasheed's responses to the preliminary deactivation notice, including issues raised by him in a telephone call on 10 December 2025, and that the responses did not suggest that any additional inquiries should have been made. Mr Rasheed had referred in his response to numerous deliveries involving difficult customers and circumstances beyond his control that he believed had contributed to his poor rating. However, in my opinion, further inquiry into these matters was not reasonably warranted. It stands to reason that drivers will sometimes encounter difficult situations and customers of the kinds referred to by Mr Rasheed. But evidently this is not so common as to prevent most other drivers from meeting the minimum rating, as the median satisfaction levels are well above 85%. The performance system is based on an average customer rating that is measured against a benchmark that in my opinion is reasonable (see below). There was nothing about the particular matters raised by Mr Rasheed in this case that in my view reasonably warranted further inquiry by Uber. Further, the deliveries to which he referred were not rated by the customers concerned.

[7] Sixthly, I find that Uber complied with the requirements of ss 14(1) to (6) of the Code. In particular, Uber complied with ss 14(1) and (2) by deciding to terminate Mr Rasheed's platform access only after having given him the preliminary deactivation notice and complying with s 13, and by notifying Mr Rasheed of its decision in writing as soon as reasonably practicable. I find that Uber's reason for terminating Mr Rasheed's platform access, which was set out in the deactivation notice, was a valid one (s 14(4)(a)), as Mr Rasheed had failed to meet his contractual obligation to maintain an average rating of 85%. Based on the evidence of Ms Fairlie, I find this to be a reasonable requirement. I accept Ms Fairlie's detailed evidence as to how this average rating was determined by Uber. I note in particular that the 85% benchmark sits well below the median rating for delivery people in Perth and Melbourne, where Mr Rasheed had worked, which from July to December 2025 was 92% and 93% respectively. In my opinion, the valid reason was one contemplated by s 19(2) of the Code.

[8] As I have said in other matters, the stipulation in s 14(4)(a) of the Code that there must be a 'valid' reason for the termination tests the quality of the reason, not its proof (see Kumar v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2275 at [8] per Saunders DP). This is clear from the requirement of s 14(4)(b) that the operator consider 'on reasonable grounds' that the relevant reason has been established. The expression 'valid reason' in s 14 of the Code differs from its cousin in s 387 of the Act, which has been held to require that the Commission be satisfied that the reason is both a good reason for dismissal and one that is factually substantiated.

[9] Mr Rasheed said that he had experienced repeated delivery difficulties that were beyond his control, including 'meet at the door' deliveries to large hotels and apartments, deliveries on busy roads with no parking, as well as abusive customers, and that it was after some 7 to 10 difficult deliveries that his rating dropped to 78%. He said that most customers do not leave ratings and that it does not take many bad reviews to bring about a decline in the overall rating. But the fact remains that the mean ratings are well above 85%. Mr Rasheed also said that on 30 November 2025 he had contacted Uber with concerns about a number of deliveries and that no action was taken about this. But Ms Fairlie's evidence, which I accept, was that from Uber's records she could see that, going back to June 2025, Mr Rasheed had not reported any problems to Uber in respect of trips that had actually been rated by customers. Mr Rasheed said that he had no history of misconduct or policy breaches and contended that Uber's application of its deactivation policy was rigid and unfair. He said that if he was able to reach the 85% benchmark previously, he was sure that he could do it again, and that he should be given another chance to do so. But I am comfortably satisfied that the requirements of the Code have been met. The consequence of this conclusion is that Mr Rasheed cannot have been unfairly deactivated (see s 536LF). If the Code has been complied with, the Commission does not then consider whether the deactivation was unfair.

[10] As Uber complied with the Code, Mr Rasheed was not unfairly deactivated (see s 536LF(c)). The application is therefore dismissed.

A. Liskowski and E. Fairlie for Portier Pacific Pty Ltd

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer