s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - revocation of earlier decision re whether applicant was protected from unfair deactivation - applicant initially performed Uber Eats work and then performed work as an Uber Driver Partner - requirement to have been performing work through or by means of a digital labour platform on a regular basis for a period of at least six months.

• [1] By consent, the parties request that I revoke my earlier decision in which I concluded that Mr Bakar had been, at the time of his deactivation on 2 May 2025, performing work through or by means of the Uber App, being a digital labour platform, on a regular basis for a period of at least six months (s 536LD(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)).[1] The resolution of this issue in favour of Mr Bakar led to my finding that Mr Bakar was a person protected from unfair deactivation at the time he was deactivated from the Uber App on 2 May 2025.

• [2] As the parties have consented to the revocation of my earlier decision, I will provide only brief reasons for exercising my discretion to do so.

• [3] My earlier decision was based on evidence given by Mr Bakar and unchallenged evidence given by Ms Laura Tierney, Industrial Relations Lead at Uber Australia Pty Ltd, including that the Uber App is the only digital labour platform through which a person may perform work as an Uber Eats delivery driver or as an Uber Driver Partner.[2]

• [4] I also accepted Ms Tierney's evidence that the operator of the Uber App is Uber Technologies Incorporated, an entity registered in the United States of America. Notwithstanding the evidence given by Ms Tierney about this matter, there is now a suggestion that the respondent may be the digital labour platform operator, not Uber Technologies, which is not a party to these proceedings and has not been served with application or any material filed in the proceedings. Further, if Uber Technologies is the operator of the Uber App in Australia, there are concerns about the extent to which any remedy could be imposed on the respondent.

• [5] Mr Bakar and the respondent have reached an agreement to settle these proceedings. Mr Bakar has filed a notice of discontinuance.

• [6] For the reasons explained above, I consider it appropriate to exercise my discretion under s 603 of the Act to revoke my earlier decision. The question of whether an applicant who has performed some work as an Uber Eats delivery driver and other work as an Uber Driver Partner meets the requirement of having performed work through or by means of a 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 six months is open for determination in other proceedings, based on the evidence adduced in those proceedings.

• [7] Orders will be issued in conjunction with this decision (PR790386).

• [8] The hearing of the revocation application scheduled to take place at 10am on 7 August 2025 is vacated.

[1] [2025] FWC 1874

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer