s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - application dismissed.

• [1] Mr Faisal Rehman (Applicant) has applied for an unfair deactivation remedy pursuant to s.536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 against Uber Australia Pty Ltd (Uber Australia).

• [2] On 16 October 2025, Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd filed a response to the application, advising that it is the entity that operates Uber Australia's digital platform and is therefore the proper respondent to the application. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise my discretion under s.586 of the Act to amend the Respondent's name to Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd.

• [3] In his application, the Applicant stated that he commenced work with the Respondent on 3 June 2019 and that he was deactivated from the Respondent's digital labour platform on 23 September 2019.

• [4] Section 536LD sets out the circumstances in which a person is protected from unfair deactivation. A person is protected only if at the time of the deactivation they have been performing digital labour platform work on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months. For this purpose, any period of such work undertaken prior to 26 August 2024, being the commencement of the unfair deactivation provisions, must not be counted (Clause 124, Schedule 1 of the FW Act).

• [5] On 20 October 2025, correspondence was sent to the Applicant advising that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with a deactivation that occurred in 2019, and that, based on the information provided, he did not satisfy the statutory requirements to make an application for an unfair deactivation remedy. The Applicant was invited to withdraw the application or, alternatively, was informed that I would proceed to dismiss the application. The Applicant was requested to respond by 22 October 2025.

• [6] The Applicant did not respond. Further correspondence was issued on 24 October 2025 affording him a final opportunity to respond. The Applicant was required to reply by 27 October 2025 and was advised that, in the absence of a response, his application would be dismissed.

• [7] As at the date of this decision, no response has been received from the Applicant.

• [8] On the material before me, it is clear that the Applicant is not protected from unfair deactivation under the Act. At the time of his deactivation, the Applicant had not been performing work for the Respondent on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months.

• [9] I am therefore satisfied that the application has no reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, I have determined to dismiss the application under s.587 of the Act.

• [10] An order dismissing the application will be issued with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer