s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - applicant not protected from unfair deactivation - application dismissed.

[1] Mr Hussnain Ali has made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) for an unfair deactivation remedy pursuant to s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

[2] Mr Ali alleges in his application he began working with Uber in August 2019 and his deactivation took effect on 15 January 2026. He also acknowledged in response to question 1.4 of his application that, at the time he was deactivated, he had not been performing work through or by means of the digital labour platform, or under a contract, or a series of contracts, arranged or facilitated through or by means of the digital labour platform, on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months. This was confirmed by Uber in its Form F89A Response, who stated Mr Ali had "performed no work on the Uber Delivery Platform since 26 August 2024 as his last trip was performed on 20 June 2022."

[3] On 24 March 2026, I advised Mr Ali that, based on the material before the Commission, his application will need to be dismissed because he does not meet the requirements of a 'person protected from unfair deactivation'. This is because in order to be protected from unfair deactivation, at the time of deactivation a person must have been performing work through or by means of the digital platform on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months (s 536LD(c)). The deactivation provisions of the Act commenced on 26 August 2024. Work undertaken prior to this time does not count. I advised Mr Ali that if he wished to make any submissions as to why his application should not be dismissed, he should do so by 5pm Tuesday 31 March 2026, or otherwise advise Chambers by that time if he preferred to discontinue his application (instead of it being dismissed).

[4] In his correspondence of 31 March 2026, Mr Ali accepted that he did not meet the requirements of s.536LD(c) of the Act, and reaffirmed that "I also confirm that I selected "No" in Question 1.4 of my application, and I accept that I did not meet this requirement". Nonetheless, Mr Ali requested the Commission consider his case on fairness grounds.

[5] Section 536LW of the Act requires me to decide whether Mr Ali was protected from unfair deactivation before considering the merits of the application. Because Mr Ali was not protected under the Act from unfair deactivation, the Commission has no jurisdiction to consider the fairness of Mr Ali's deactivation and the Commission must not order a remedy for unfair deactivation (s 536LP(a) of the Act).

[6] It follows that Mr Ali's unfair deactivation application must be dismissed.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer