s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - application dismissed

• [1] Mr Paris has filed an unfair deactivation application against Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd t/a Uber (Respondent).

• [2] Mr Paris attended a directions hearing, by telephone, before me on 22 April 2025. During the directions hearing Mr Paris explained that he had been reactivated by the Respondent but he lost income in the period between his deactivation and his reactivation. I asked Mr Paris what outcome he was seeking and whether he wished to proceed with his unfair deactivation application against the Respondent. I outlined the process that would be followed and the directions that would be made to prepare the matter for hearing if Mr Paris wished to proceed to a final hearing to have his unfair deactivation application heard and determined. Mr Paris variously stated, "forget about it", "end this", and "this is a waste of time". I then asked Mr Paris whether he wished to withdraw/discontinue his unfair deactivation application, to which he said "no" and he just wanted the application to "sit there". I explained to Mr Paris that it was not possible for his unfair deactivation application to remain on foot and not proceed to a hearing or have anything else done in relation to it. Ultimately, Mr Paris hung up and departed the directions hearing.

• [3] On 22 April 2025, I issued directions requiring that, by 4pm on 6 May 2025, Mr Paris file in the Fair Work Commission and serve on the Respondent all the witness statements, documents and submissions on which he wishes to rely in support of his claim that he was unfairly deactivated and the remedy he seeks for being unfairly deactivated.

• [4] Mr Paris has not complied with the direction requiring him to file and serve material by 4pm on 6 May 2025.

• [5] The Respondent has applied to have Mr Paris's unfair deactivation application dismissed on the basis that he unreasonably failed to comply with the directions made on 22 April 2025. Mr Paris was given an opportunity to respond to this application. He did not do so.

• [6] I am satisfied that Mr Paris has unreasonably failed to comply with the directions made on 22 April 2025. Mr Paris has not given any indication that he wishes to pursue his unfair deactivation application against the Respondent.

• [7] Having regard to all the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to exercise my discretion under s 536M of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to dismiss Mr Paris's unfair deactivation application against the Respondent.

• [8] Mr Paris's unfair deactivation application against the Respondent is dismissed.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer