The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 17 March 2026.

[2026] FWC 880

Fair Work Act 2009

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy- low customer satisfaction rating - compliance with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code - application dismissed.

[1] Mr Jamaz Jaalo made an application for an unfair deactivation remedy pursuant to s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) on 10 September 2025 in respect of the deactivation of his account with Uber Eats. Portier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber Eats is the respondent to the application.

[2] The respondent raised a jurisdictional objection that it complied with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code (Code). A person's deactivation will be consistent with the Code if, at the time of the deactivation, the digital labour platform operator complied with the Code in relation to the deactivation (s 536LJ(3) of the Act).

[3] At a determinative conference on 16 December 2025, I concluded that the respondent had complied with the Code. My reasons for this conclusion were as follows:

(1) The respondent gave Mr Jaalo a written deactivation warning that met the requirements of s 8 of the Code on 30 May 2025 and 8 July 2025.

(2) The respondent was entitled to commence the deactivation process because it met the requirements of s 10(b) of the Code. The respondent considered, on grounds that I consider to be reasonable, that Mr Jaalo had not, within a reasonable time after the warning, remedied his below average customer satisfaction rating, which was below the 85% average in Melbourne.

(3) The respondent provided Mr Jaalo with a preliminary deactivation notice that complied with s 11 of the Code on 5 August 2025.

(4) The steps taken by the respondent after issuing the preliminary deactivation notice met the requirements of s 13 of the Code, including by allowing Mr Jaalo an opportunity to respond to the preliminary deactivation notice, and having a human representative consider his response.

• [4] Section 14 of the Code provides that after giving a preliminary deactivation notice and complying with the requirements in s 13, a digital labour platform operator must decide whether to (1) take no further action, or (2) terminate the worker's access to the digital labour platform. Its decision must be notified to the employee-like worker in writing as soon as reasonably practicable. I am satisfied that the respondent complied with both ss 14(1) and (2) of the Code. Its decision to terminate Mr Jaalo's access was for a reason that I consider to be valid, being Mr Jaalo's failure to meet the respondent's requirement to maintain an average rating of 85%. In this respect, the respondent's Senior Manager, Industrial Relations, Ms Emilie Fairlie gave evidence in the proceeding that the 85% minimum rating requirement in Melbourne is reasonable, noting that the average minimum rating in Melbourne in the first six months in 2025 was 93%.[1] I accept Ms Fairlie's evidence, which was not the subject of any real challenge. I consider that a failure to meet this platform obligation meets the requirements of s 19(2) and constitutes a valid reason for deactivation. For the purposes of s 14(4) of the Code, I accept on the evidence of Ms Fairlie that the respondent considered on reasonable grounds that the reason had been established.[2]

• [5] Mr Jaalo's concerns, as outlined in his witness statement, are that he was never provided with any specific examples of any alleged service issues by the respondent or guidance tailored to his account in any communications from the respondent.[3] While his written material stated that he did not recall receiving the warning on 30 May 2025, Mr Jaalo acknowledged during the determinative conference that he had seen the message, but it was not a matter that he concentrated on.[4] Mr Jaalo also had concerns that his rating did not distinguish between issues caused by him and those caused by restaurants or the platform, and that issues such as merchant delays, in-app issues, or the parking and safety constraints that affect delivery times and ratings were not taken into account by the respondent.[5] Mr Jaalo specifies that in his experience, a substantial share of negative feedback is driven by: (a) restaurant preparation delays; (b) order substitution or missing‑item disputes decided by the customer; (c) routing or app glitches; (d) traffic, weather, and lawful parking constraints; and (e) abuse of the rating feature unrelated to his delivery conduct.[6] Further, Mr Jaalo says he was not offered any practical assistance or a remedial period to improve before being deactivated.[7]

• [6] In respect of these matters, Ms Fairlie gave evidence that she reviewed the respondent's business records to identify any trips Mr Jaalo took between 14 November 2023 and 4 August 2025 that may have been impacted by factors out of his control, such as trips with reported network issues or reported food packaging/food issues. From the review it was determined that there were no trips performed by Mr Jaalo that had reported network issues or had reported food/packaging issues.[8] Ms Fairlie said that while Mr Jaalo stated that his ratings were impacted by matters outside his control, common reasons provided by consumers for their thumbs down rating of Mr Jaalo over his last 100 customer ratings include rush_unprofessional, courier_poor_communication, rush_items_damaged, courier_missed_instructions, and lad_left_wrong_spot.[9] Further, Ms Fairlie's statement provides that Mr Jaalo was not automatically or immediately deactivated; he was provided with 'low ratings education' to assist in improving his customer satisfaction rating and was provided with a chance to improve upon receiving the first and second deactivation warnings, and the preliminary deactivation notice. The evidence of Ms Fairlie in respect of these matters was convincing and I accept it, having regard to the contemporaneous documentary material before the Commission which supports it. I acknowledge that there is no direct evidence from any customer in relation to the low ratings attributed to Mr Jaalo's service, but such evidence is not required in Mr Jaalo's case, noting that he does not dispute the minimum average satisfaction rating he held, but rather seeks another opportunity to improve his rating and return to his work.

[7] For the reasons given, I was satisfied that the respondent complied with the Code. It follows, having regard to s 536LF of the Act, that the deactivation could not be unfair. Accordingly, I dismissed Mr Jaalo's application for an unfair deactivation remedy.

[1] Witness statement of E. Fairlie at [22]; Transcript PN117

[2] See Kumar v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2275 at [8] (per Saunders DP)

[3] Witness statement of J. Jaalo at [7]

[5] Witness statement of J. Jaalo at [10]

[8] Witness statement of E. Fairlie at [45]

[9] Annexure N to the witness statement of E. Fairlie

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer