s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy; applicant not a person protected from unfair deactivation; applicant did not work through or by means of a digital labour platform on a regular basis of a period of at least 6 months

[1] On 23 December 2025, Mr Muhammad Umair Munir filed an application pursuant to s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) seeking an unfair deactivation remedy. Portier Pacific Pty Ltd (Portier) is the Respondent to the application. Mr Munir had a digital account operated by Portier in connection with his work as an Uber Eats driver and performed work through or by means of that account.

• [2] Mr Munir said in his application his deactivation took effect on 27 October 2024. An application seeking a deactivation remedy must be made within 21 days after the deactivation took effect or within such further period as the Commission allows[1]. Mr Munir's application was therefore filed well outside this time limit.

[3] Portier objects to the application on this basis. It also objects to the application because Mr Munir's account was deactivated before 26 February 2025 and as such, he is not a person protected by unfair deactivation.

• [4] It also says Mr Munir is not a person protected from unfair deactivation because he has not been performing work through, or by means of the digital labour platform in question on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months[2].

[5] On 23 February 2026 an email was sent to Mr Munir from my chambers which said as follows:

You have made an application in the Fair Work Commission in relation to the deactivation of your account with Uber.

Two important issues have been identified in relation to your application.

In your application relating to the deactivation of your account with Uber, you say your deactivation occurred on 27 October 2024.

The recent email you sent to chambers confirms that your deactivation occurred on 27 October 2024 (and includes documentary evidence to that effect).

The Fair Work Commission's power to deal with applications in relation to "unfair deactivation" does not extend to circumstances where a person's deactivation occurred prior to 26 February 2025.

It appears your deactivation occurred prior to 26 February 2025.

Failure to perform work on a regular basis for a period of at least six months from 26 August 2024

Also, a person is not protected from unfair deactivation unless they performed work on a regular basis for a period of at least six months.

The time which may be counted is only time worked after 26 August 2024.

It appears you performed no work for Uber after your account was deactivated on 27 October 2024.

This appears to mean that, even if your deactivation was unfair, you did not perform at least six months work after 26 August 2024 - perhaps only about 1 month.

Dismissal of your application and further submissions

In these circumstances, the Commission is considering dismissing your application. This is because it appears the Commission has no power to determine your application.

You are invited to provide any response you may wish to about this matter. This can be in the form of an email sent to chambers. You may wish to explain why you say the Commission does have power to hear your case or raise some other matter.

This must occur by 4:00PM Tuesday 24 February 2026.

[6] On 23 February 2026 Mr Munir sent an email to my chambers in which he said among other things:

"Although the restriction first appeared on 27 October 2024, the matter was not finalised at that time. I requested a review through Uber's internal process and waited for the outcome in good faith. The review was handled remotely and continued for a long period, and I did not receive a clear or fair determination. The platform itself shows that the review process extended much later, which is why I reasonably believed the matter was still under consideration.

Because the review process remained ongoing and no proper reasons or evidence were provided, the issue effectively continued beyond February 2025. I was relying on Uber's internal review process before bringing the matter to the Commission.

In addition, the restriction immediately prevented me from receiving trip offers, which meant I was unable to continue performing work on the platform despite being willing to do so.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Commission to consider my circumstances and allow the matter to proceed so it can be assessed on its merits.

[7] On 25 February 2026 another email was sent by my chambers to the parties, in which I expressed a provisional view about the application. The parties were invited to provide comment about this provisional view if they wished, by 10:00AM, 26 February 2026. My provisional view was:

"1. This matter can be determined on the basis of the material filed by the parties and need not be the subject of a hearing. The Commission is not obliged to hold a hearing (except as provided for in the Act) (Fair Work Act 2009, s 593(1))

2. The application should be dismissed. Mr Munir does not dispute that he did not perform at least six months work on a regular basis calculated after 26 August 2024. While he says that he was placed under restriction preventing him from receiving trip offers, meaning he was unable to continue performing work on the platform despite being willing to do so, the fact remains he did not fulfill the requirement set out in s 536LD(c) of the Act - that he has been performing work on a regular basis for a period of at least six months. This requirement is mandatory, with respect to whether a person is protected from unfair deactivation.

3. It is therefore not necessary to determine the other objections made by Uber Eats."

[8] Neither party provided any comment or response to this provisional view.

[9] I confirm my provisional view in this matter. There appears to be no doubt Mr Munir did not perform any work of any kind in connection with the account or otherwise as an Uber Eats driver after his deactivation on 27 October 2024. This means that the period of time he performed work through the digital labour platform in question on a regular basis after 26 August 2024 was at the most, only about 1 month. He is not a person protected from unfair deactivation within the meaning of s 536LD(c) of the Act.

[10] For Mr Munir, this may seem a strange outcome because it may be that he worked as an Uber Eats driver for more than 6 months prior to August 2024.

• [11] However, the relatively new protection in the Act from unfair deactivation works in such a way that the requirement a person has performed work on a regular basis for at least 6 months only counts time worked after 26 August 2024[3].

[12] I note Mr Munir also protests that, in effect, his failure to perform work after October 2024 was not his fault - he had been restricted from performing despite being willing to do so. Be that as it may, Mr Munir has not fulfilled the requirement set out in s 536LD(c) of the Act and his application must be dismissed.

[13] It is not necessary for me to determine the other objections raised by Portier: that the deactivation took place before 26 February 2025 and that the application was filed out of time.

[14] An order dismissing the application will issue.

[1] Fair Work Act s 536LU(3)

[2] Fair Work Act s 536LD(c)

[3] Priyanash Singh Panwar v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1578 [11]

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer