Fair Work Act 2009

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

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

• [1] Mr Kumar has made an application to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair deactivation remedy pursuant to s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Portier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber Eats is the respondent to the application.

• [2] On 21 and 28 July 2025, I held a hearing, by video conference, in relation to whether Mr Kumar was unfairly deactivated. Mr Kumar gave evidence in support of his case. Ms Emilee Fairlie, Senior Manager, Industrial Relations at Uber Australia Pty Ltd, gave evidence in support of Uber's case.

• [3] There is no dispute between the parties, and I am satisfied on the basis of evidence before the Commission, that:

(a) Mr Kumar's unfair deactivation application was made within the period required by s 536LU(3) of the Act; and

(b) Mr Kumar was protected from unfair deactivation at the time he was deactivated by Uber.

• [4] The third initial matter about which I must be satisfied before considering the merits of the application is whether Mr Kumar's deactivation was consistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code (s 536LW(c) of the Act). 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).

Chapter 3A of the Act deals with minimum standards for certain workers (called regulated workers).

Regulated workers include employee-like workers who perform work through or by means of a digital labour platform.

Section 536LJ of the Act provides that the Minister must make a code to be known as the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. This instrument is the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code.

An employee-like worker may be found to be unfairly deactivated from a digital labour platform if the Fair Work Commission is satisfied that the deactivation is not consistent with this Code (see paragraph 536LF(c) of the Act).

Note: A number of expressions used in this instrument are defined in the Act, including the following:

Act means the Fair Work Act 2009.

code process means the process, set out in Part 2, for deactivation of an employee-like worker from a digital labour platform.

deactivation warning: see subsection 8(1).

final deactivation notice: see subsection 14(5).

(b) a police force or a police service of a State or Territory; or

(c) any other authority or person responsible for the enforcement of the laws of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.

preliminary deactivation notice: see subsection 11(1).

6 References to modification of access to digital labour platform

A reference in this instrument to the modification of an employee-like worker's access to a digital labour platform means a modification of access having the result that the worker is deactivated from the platform within the meaning of section 536LG of the Act.

Part 2 - Code process for deactivation

7 When code process for deactivation must be followed

(1) To be taken to comply with this instrument, a digital labour platform operator must follow the code process in relation to the proposed deactivation of an employee-like worker, who is protected from unfair deactivation, from a digital labour platform if:

(a) the operator is considering deactivating the worker from the platform; and

(i) subject to subsection (2), a matter related to the worker's conduct in performing work through or by means of the platform; or

(ii) a matter related to the worker's capacity to perform work through or by means of the platform.

Note 1: To be protected from unfair deactivation from a digital labour platform, an employee-like worker must have performed work through or by means of the platform on a regular basis for at least 6 months (see paragraph 536LD(c) of the Act).

Note 2: For circumstances in which work is performed on a regular basis, see section 18.

(2) The code process does not apply to the deactivation of an employee-like worker by a digital labour platform operator for serious misconduct by the worker.

Note 1: A deactivation that occurs because of serious misconduct of the person who is deactivated is not unfair (see subsection 536LH(2) of the Act).

Note 2: Serious misconduct has the meaning prescribed by the regulations (see section 12 of the Act).

Note 3: Subsections 536LH(3) and (4) of the Act also provide that certain short-term deactivations are not unfair.

8 Deactivation warning generally required before deactivation

(1) Before deactivating an employee-like worker from a digital labour platform, a digital labour platform operator must give the worker a notice in writing (the deactivation warning) stating that the worker risks being deactivated from the platform for a reason related to the worker's conduct or capacity.

(a) specify the reason, relating to the employee-like worker's conduct or capacity, for which it is given; and

(b) state that the worker risks being deactivated from the digital labour platform if:

(i) the worker does not, within a reasonable time, remedy the matters that are the subject of the warning; or

(ii) the reason for giving the warning continues or is repeated; or

(iii) another issue, relating to the worker's conduct or capacity, arises; and

(c) state that the worker may seek assistance or support from a person (other than a lawyer acting in a professional capacity), who may be a delegate or an employee of an organisation, in relation to the deactivation warning.

Note 1: For organisation in paragraph (c), see section 12 of the Act.

Note 2: The worker may also appoint a person to provide the worker with support or representation (see section 16).

(3) The deactivation warning must include sufficient information to enable a reasonable person in the position of the employee-like worker to understand the matters mentioned in subsection (2).

Note: In giving a deactivation warning, a digital labour platform operator is not required to disclose information about an individual if the operator considers, on reasonable grounds, that the disclosure may pose a risk to the safety or security of the individual (see section 17).

9 Exception - circumstances when deactivation warning not required

(1) Despite section 8, a digital labour platform operator is not required to give an employee-like worker a deactivation warning before deactivating, under Division 3, the worker if the operator considers on reasonable grounds that the matter relating to the worker's conduct or capacity is such that:

(a) it warrants immediate modification or suspension of the worker's access to the digital labour platform; or

(b) it is not reasonable to expect the operator to allow the worker to continue to perform work through or by means of the platform.

Note: The following are examples of when subsection (1) might apply:

(a) immediate suspension of an employee-like worker is required for health or safety reasons;

(b) an employee-like worker loses a licence or accreditation and, as a result, has no legal right to perform the work;

(c) an employee-like worker engages in fraudulent or dishonest conduct;

(d) an employee-like worker's conduct is or will be referred to a law enforcement or regulatory agency.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), one or more reports or complaints made to the digital labour platform operator may constitute reasonable grounds for the operator's opinion about the employee-like worker's conduct or capacity.

(3) Subsection (2) does not limit the matters that may constitute reasonable grounds for such an opinion.

(a) a digital labour platform operator is, under section 9, not required to give an employee-like worker a deactivation warning before deactivating the worker; or

(b) a digital labour platform operator has given an employee-like worker a deactivation warning and the operator considers, on reasonable grounds, that deactivation of the worker is justified because:

(i) the worker has not, within a reasonable time, remedied the matters that were the subject of the warning; or

(ii) the reason for giving the warning has continued or been repeated; or

(iii) another issue, relating to the worker's conduct or capacity, has arisen.

11 Operator must give preliminary deactivation notice

(1) If this Division applies, the digital labour platform operator must give the employee-like worker a notice (the preliminary deactivation notice) that specifies the following matters:

(a) the reason, relating to the conduct or capacity of the employee-like worker, for which the notice is given;

(b) that the digital labour platform operator is considering terminating the worker's access to the digital labour platform;

(ii) a right to request a discussion with a representative of the operator; within a reasonable period specified in the notice;

(d) that the worker may appoint a person to provide the worker with support or representation (see section 16).

(2) The preliminary deactivation notice must include sufficient information to enable a reasonable person in the position of the employee-like worker to understand the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

Note: In giving a preliminary deactivation notice, a digital labour platform operator is not required to disclose information about an individual if the operator considers, on reasonable grounds, that the disclosure may pose a risk to the safety or security of the individual (see section 17).

12 Modification or suspension of access to platform

(1) If this Division applies, a digital labour platform operator may modify or suspend the employee-like worker's access to the digital labour platform.

(2) The modification or suspension may take effect before or after the digital labour platform operator gives a preliminary deactivation notice.

(3) If the digital labour platform operator modifies or suspends the employee-like worker's access to the digital labour platform, the operator must notify the worker, in writing, of the following matters:

(a) the time and day from which the modification or suspension takes effect;

(b) the consequences of the modification or suspension for the worker's access to the platform.

(4) The matters under subsection (3) must be notified as follows:

(a) if the modification or suspension takes effect before the digital labour platform operator gives a preliminary deactivation notice to the employee-like worker - as part of the preliminary deactivation notice to be given to the worker as soon as reasonably practicable after the modification or suspension takes effect;

(b) if the modification or suspension takes effect at the same time as the preliminary deactivation notice is given - as part of the preliminary deactivation notice;

(c) if the modification or suspension takes effect after the preliminary deactivation notice is given - before the modification or suspension takes effect.

13 Steps after preliminary deactivation notice is given

Worker's response to preliminary deactivation notice

(1) An employee-like worker may respond to a preliminary deactivation notice given to the worker by a digital labour platform operator.

(2) The response must be given within the period specified in the preliminary deactivation notice, or within such longer period as is agreed between the operator and the worker.

(3) The response may be in writing or may be given orally (including as part of the discussion mentioned below).

(4) The employee-like worker may, within the period mentioned in paragraph 11(1)(c), request the digital labour platform operator to make a representative of the operator available to discuss the preliminary deactivation notice.

(5) If an employee-like worker makes such a request, the digital labour platform operator must make a representative available for the discussion within a reasonable time.

(6) A person appointed by the employee-like worker for support or representation (see section 16) may participate in the discussion.

(7) A human representative of the digital labour platform operator must consider the employee-like worker's response (if any), including the discussion (if any) between the worker and the digital labour platform operator's representative.

(8) The digital labour platform operator must make such further inquiries (if any) as are reasonably warranted after considering the employee-like worker's response.

(a) a preliminary deactivation notice is issued to an employee-like worker after a report or complaint about the worker is made to the digital labour platform operator; and

(b) the report or complaint concerns a matter that, if true, would constitute a valid reason for the deactivation of the worker; and

(i) the worker's response to the notice under this section does not provide adequate information to address the report or complaint; or

(ii) the worker provides no response to the notice under this section;

then, if the operator terminates the worker's access to the platform, the termination is taken, for the purposes of subsection 14(4), to be termination for a valid reason that the operator considers on reasonable grounds has been established.

14 Outcome of digital labour platform operator's consideration and inquiries

(1) After giving a preliminary deactivation notice, and complying with any applicable requirements in section 13, a digital labour platform operator must decide whether to:

(a) take no further action in relation to the employee-like worker; or

(b) terminate the worker's access to the digital labour platform.

(2) The digital labour platform operator must, as soon as reasonably practicable, notify the employee-like worker in writing of the operator's decision.

(3) If the digital labour platform operator decides to take no further action in relation to the employee-like worker, the operator must lift any modification or suspension of the worker's access to the digital labour platform imposed under this Division.

(4) The digital labour platform operator may terminate the employee-like worker's access to the digital labour platform only if:

(a) the reason for the termination is a valid reason; and

(b) the operator considers on reasonable grounds that the reason has been established.

(5) If the digital labour platform operator decides to terminate the employee-like worker's access, the operator must, as soon as reasonably practicable, give the employee-like worker a written notice (the final deactivation notice) that:

(a) states that the operator has decided to terminate the worker's access to the digital labour platform; and

(b) specifies the reason for the termination; and

(c) specifies the time and day on which the termination will take effect (which may be immediately); and

(d) specifies when and how any final payments owing to the worker will be made.

(6) The final deactivation notice must contain sufficient information to enable a reasonable person in the position of the employee-like worker to understand the matters mentioned in subsection (5).

Note: In giving a final deactivation notice, a digital labour platform operator is not required to disclose information about an individual if the operator considers, on reasonable grounds, that the disclosure may pose a risk to the safety or security of the individual (see section 17).

Division 4 - Matters relating to code process generally

A digital labour platform operator must use reasonable endeavours to ensure that:

(a) a process required to be conducted in accordance with this Part is carried out within a reasonable time frame; and

(b) an employee-like worker is given a reasonable time to exercise the worker's right of response under section 13.

(1) An employee-like worker may appoint a person (other than a lawyer acting in a professional capacity) to provide the worker with support or representation in relation to the deactivation of the worker, under this Part, from a digital labour platform.

(2) The person may be a delegate or an employee of an organisation.

Note: For organisation, see section 12 of the Act.

17 Information disclosure and law enforcement or regulatory obligations

(1) Nothing in this Part requires a digital labour platform operator to disclose any information about an individual if the operator considers, on reasonable grounds, that the disclosure may pose a risk to the safety or security of the individual.

(2) Nothing in this Part requires a digital labour platform operator to contravene:

(a) a lawful direction given by a law enforcement or regulatory agency to the operator; or

(b) any obligations that the operator has in relation to the protection of personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988).

Part 3 - Matters relating to deactivation generally

18 Circumstances in which work is performed on a regular basis

(1) This section sets out, for the purposes of paragraph 536LJ(2)(a) of the Act, some circumstances in which work is taken to be performed by an employee-like worker on a regular basis.

Note: To be protected from unfair deactivation from a digital labour platform, an employee-like worker must have performed work through or by means of the platform on a regular basis for at least 6 months (see paragraph 536LD(c) of the Act).

(2) An employee-like worker who completes, on average, 60 hours of paid work each month through or by means of a digital labour platform is taken to perform that work on a regular basis.

(3) An employee-like worker who completes, on average, paid work on 3 days of each week through or by means of a digital labour platform is taken to perform that work on a regular basis.

(4) A reference in this section to time spent completing paid work is a reference to the time spent in undertaking the work for which the employee-like worker is entitled to be paid. Note: An effect of this subsection is that time spent waiting for work, or between tasks constituting the work, is not counted.

(5) An employee-like worker may be taken to perform work on a regular basis through or by means of a digital labour platform even though the worker elects, in some weeks, not to perform any work through or by means of the platform.

(6) This section does not limit the circumstances in which work is taken to be performed by an employee-like worker on a regular basis.

19 Matters that may constitute a valid reason for deactivation

(1) A matter set out in any of the following subsections may constitute a valid reason for the deactivation of an employee-like worker from a digital labour platform if it arises in the course of, or in relation to, the worker performing work through or by means of the platform.

Note: If the matter constitutes serious misconduct, the digital labour platform operator is not required to follow the code process in relation to deactivation of the employee-like worker (see subsection 7(2)).

(2) The employee-like worker fails or refuses to meet one or more of the following requirements, to the extent that the requirement is reasonable and is known to the worker as a result of communication from the digital labour platform operator or otherwise:

(a) the requirements of the worker's services contract with the digital labour platform operator;

(b) the conditions of use of the digital labour platform;

(c) the operator's standards or requirements in relation to quality, service level or performance;

(d) the operator's code of conduct for the platform;

(e) any other legally binding requirements on the worker's use of the platform not mentioned in an earlier paragraph of this subsection.

(3) The employee-like worker engages in inappropriate physical or verbal conduct including, without limitation, conduct of a violent, threatening, harassing, discriminatory, sexual or abusive nature.

(4) The digital labour platform operator considers on reasonable grounds that:

(a) the employee-like worker fails or refuses to comply with a work health and safety duty of the worker; or

(b) deactivation of the employee-like worker is necessary to protect the health and safety of any person.

(5) The performance of work through or by means of the digital labour platform requires the employee-like worker to drive a motor vehicle and, in doing so, the worker engages in unsafe driving practices (including speeding).

(6) The employee-like worker misuses information about the following persons obtained by the worker in performing work through or by means of the digital labour platform:

(c) another employee-like worker who performs work through or by means of the platform;

(7) The employee-like worker engages in fraudulent or dishonest conduct, including theft of property.

(8) The employee-like worker deliberately causes damage to another person's property.

(9) The employee-like worker engages in conduct that results in the referral or report of the worker's conduct to a law enforcement or regulatory agency.

(a) fails or refuses to comply with a mandatory industry code of conduct that applies to work performed through or by means of the digital labour platform; or

(b) engages in conduct that causes, or may cause, the digital labour platform operator to breach such a code of conduct.

(11) The digital labour platform operator is requested by a law enforcement or regulatory agency to remove the employee-like worker from performing work through or by means of the digital labour platform. Licensing, accreditation and screening requirements etc.

(12) The employee-like worker fails or refuses to comply with a licensing or accreditation requirement that is:

(a) necessary to perform work through or by means of the digital labour platform; and

(b) administered or enforced by a law enforcement or regulatory agency.

(13) The employee-like worker loses a licence or accreditation necessary for the worker to perform work through or by means of the digital labour platform.

(14) The employee-like worker fails or refuses to maintain the worker's tools or equipment so as to meet relevant licensing or accreditation requirements.

(15) The employee-like worker fails or refuses to comply with a mandatory screening or registration requirement necessary to perform work through or by means of the digital labour platform.

(16) The employee-like worker fails or refuses to perform work through or by means of the digital labour platform for which payment is made to the worker for such period that the digital labour platform operator must deactivate the worker to comply with a requirement of a law enforcement or regulatory agency.

(17) This section does not limit the matters that may constitute a valid reason for the deactivation of an employee-like worker from a digital labour platform.

(1) A digital labour platform operator must ensure that, except as otherwise provided in this instrument, all communications and information relating to the code process and the deactivation of an employee-like worker from the digital labour platform are made in writing using one or both of the following methods:

(b) an appropriate alternative method determined by the operator acting reasonably.

(2) If the digital labour platform operator uses the digital labour platform for communications and information, the operator must ensure that the employee-like worker has sufficient access to the platform to enable the worker to access and respond to the communications and information.

21 Data and platform access following reinstatement

(1) This section applies if a digital labour platform operator takes any of the following action in relation to the deactivation of an employee-like worker's access to a digital labour platform:

(c) reinstates the worker's access to the platform after having previously terminated such access.

(2) The digital labour platform operator must ensure that, as soon as reasonably practicable after the operator takes the action mentioned in subsection (1):

(a) the employee-like worker has the same access to the digital labour platform (including to data and information relating to the worker's performance of work through or by means of the platform) that the worker had immediately before the deactivation; and

(b) in a case where the deactivation affected the worker's status or ranking on the platform - the worker retains a status or ranking no lower than that held by the worker immediately before the deactivation.

22 Record keeping for worker data and deactivation processes

(1) A digital labour platform operator must make and keep records of the following matters to the extent that the operator considers reasonably necessary to demonstrate compliance with this instrument:

(a) data relating to the work performed through or by means of the digital labour platform by an employee-like worker;

(b) the processes followed, and the decisions made, in relation to the deactivation of each employee-like worker from the digital labour platform.

(2) The records must be kept for so long as the digital labour platform operator considers reasonably necessary to demonstrate compliance with this instrument.

(3) To the extent that the records are or include personal information within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988, the records must be collected, used and disclosed only in accordance with that Act."

• [6] As set out above, section 14(4) of the Code permits a digital labour platform operator to terminate an employee-like worker's access to the digital labour platform only if (a) the reason for the termination is a valid reason and (b) the operator considers on reasonable grounds that the reason has been established. It is arguable that subsection 14(4)(a) of the Code requires an objective determination of whether alleged conduct occurred in order to assess whether a reason "is a valid reason" - similar to the approach under section 387(a) of the Act, which governs unfair dismissal. Under Part 3-2 of the Act (unfair dismissal), it is insufficient for an employer to merely hold a reasonable belief; the Commission must find, on the balance of probabilities, that the conduct occurred.[1]

• [7] However, subsection 14(4)(a) must be read in conjunction with subsection 14(4)(b) of the Code, which introduces both a subjective and an objective element. The subjective element is that the operator must consider that the reason for terminating the worker's access to the digital labour platform has been established. The objective element is that there must be reasonable grounds for the operator's belief that the reason has been established. This indicates that the Code does not require the Commission to make a factual finding about whether or not alleged conduct occurred, but rather to assess whether the operator's belief is supported by reasonable grounds.

• [8] In light of this, the requirement in paragraph 14(4)(a) of the Code - that the reason is a valid reason - should be understood as a test of the quality of the reason. That is, whether the reason is valid in the sense of being "sound, defensible or well-founded," and not "capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced".[2] A reason that is "valid" will involve something more than a minor failing or trivial misdemeanour, and must be of sufficient gravity or seriousness to justify deactivation.[3] This is a question of characterisation, not proof. The Commission's role under the Code is to evaluate whether the reason being relied on by the operator for deactivation meets this standard of being a "valid reason", rather than to determine whether the alleged conduct occurred.

• [9] Section 19 of the Code sets out matters that "may constitute a valid reason for the deactivation of an employee-like worker". One such matter is where the employee-like worker fails or refuses to meet one of the requirements specified in s 19(2)(a) to (e) of the Code, "to the extent that the requirement is reasonable and is known to the worker as a result of communication from the digital labour platform operator or otherwise". Whether such a requirement is "reasonable" must be judged objectively having regard to all the circumstances.[4] It is not necessary to show that the requirement is the preferable or most appropriate course of action or in accordance with "best practice" or in the best interests of the parties.[5] The test is not whether the requirement is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have made the decision.[6] There may be a range of options open to a digital labour platform operator within the bounds of reasonableness.[7] However, a decision which does not have an evident or intelligible justification will be unreasonable.[8]

• [10] On 7 May 2023, Mr Kumar signed a delivery person agreement with Uber and Uber Technologies Inc, confirming that he had read and acknowledged Uber's Community Guidelines. Clause 5.1(l) of the agreement provides that Mr Kumar "must comply with the Community Guidelines and other Policies". Clause 16.1 of the agreement defines Community Guidelines to "mean the policy available at https://www.uber.com/au/en/safety/uber-community-guidelines?."

• [11] Clause 5.3 of the agreement governs how ratings work. It provides:

(a) You, Customers and Delivery Recipients have the option on the Uber apps to provide feedback (including a rating) about the Delivery Services or, in your case, the Customer or Delivery Recipient. If you do provide a rating or feedback, you must provide it in good faith. Feedback and ratings are Uber Data.

(b) Uber, Portier Pacific and their Affiliates are not required to verify any feedback or ratings. Uber may edit or remove comments if they include obscenities, objectionable content or Personal Data, or if they violate Law or the Community Guidelines."

• [12] Uber's Community Guidelines relevantly provide:

"...Not following any one of our guidelines can constitute a material breach or violation of the terms of your agreement with Uber and may result in the loss of access to part or all of the Uber Marketplace Platform.

Everyone who signs up for an Uber account is required to follow Uber's Community Guidelines....

Drivers, riders, delivery people, Uber Eats users and merchants can give and receive ratings, as well as give feedback on how the trip or delivery went. This feedback system improves accountability and helps create a respectful, safe and transparent environment for everyone. Drivers and delivery people can see their current rating in the app. Merchants can find their Uber Eats user and delivery person rating by signing into Uber Eats Manager. Riders can see their rating displayed under their name by opening the app and touching the menu.

There is a minimum average rating in each city. This is because there may be cultural differences in the way people in different cities rate each other. Drivers, riders, delivery people or merchants that don't meet the minimum average rating for their city may lose access to all or part of the Uber Marketplace Platform. If your rating is approaching this limit, we will let you know and may share information that may help you improve your rating.

If you're looking to keep your average rating high, it's helpful to be courteous and respectful to all people while using the Uber Marketplace Platform and interacting with others in the Uber community. Drivers and delivery people using the Uber Marketplace Platform typically provide excellent service to their riders and recipients, and most riders, delivery people and recipients are courteous and respectful, so most trips and deliveries run smoothly. Contacting Support will not lead to an individual rating being removed. We know that sometimes a trip or delivery doesn't go well-that's why your rating is an average rating.

If you're a driver and you lose access to your Uber account for low ratings, you may have the opportunity to get back on the road if you meet eligibility requirements and provide proof that you've successfully taken a quality improvement course offered by third-party experts.

Check with the Uber Support team or go to help.uber.com to find out more.

Losing access to the Uber Marketplace Platform may be disruptive to your life or to your business. That's why we believe it is important to have clear standards that explain the circumstances in which you may lose access to the Uber Marketplace Platform. If you violate any applicable terms of your contractual agreement with Uber, or any other applicable policies, any one of these Community Guidelines or any additional policies and standards that are communicated by Uber to you from time to time, you can lose access to all or part of the Uber Marketplace Platform. If you have more than one Uber account, such as a rider account and a driver account, violating the Community Guidelines could also lead you to lose access to all Uber accounts. If you believe an error caused you to lose access to your account, you may contact the Uber Support team.

Uber receives feedback through a variety of channels, reviews reports submitted to our Support team that may violate our Community Guidelines, and may investigate through a specialised team. If we are made aware of potentially problematic behaviour, we may contact you so we can look into it. We may, at our sole discretion, put a hold on your account or turn your account inactive until our review is complete.

Not following any one of our guidelines may result in the loss of access to all or part of the Uber Marketplace Platform. This can include reported violations of our Community Guidelines and certain actions you may take outside of the Uber Marketplace Platform, including but not limited to other platforms, if we determine that those actions threaten the safety of the Uber community, our employees and contractors or cause harm to Uber's brand, reputation or business. And if the issues raised are serious or a repeat report, or you refuse to cooperate, you may lose access to the Uber Marketplace Platform. Any behaviour involving violence, sexual misconduct, harassment, fraud or discrimination, or deceptive, illegal or unsafe activity, while using the Uber Marketplace Platform can result in the immediate loss of access to the Uber Marketplace Platform. Additionally, when law enforcement is involved, we will cooperate with their investigation in accordance with our Guidelines for Law Enforcement Authorities, found here.

Many states, cities, and airports regulate the provision of certain services, including ridesharing services, on the Uber Marketplace Platform. If we determine that your driver or delivery person account is not in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, we may be required to remove your access to the Uber Marketplace Platform.

Lastly, all drivers and delivery people wanting to use the Uber Marketplace Platform undergo a screening process, including motor vehicle record and background checks. A driver or delivery person will lose access to their Uber account(s) if a routine motor vehicle record check, background check or other check uncovers a violation of Uber's Community Guidelines or other criteria required by local regulators.

To read more about our Community Guidelines, go here.

Riders and Uber Eats users can access Terms of Use for Australia here and for New Zealand here. Partners can access their legal agreement with Uber here."

• [13] On 19 May 2023, Mr Kumar commenced performing work through the Uber app as a Delivery Person.

• [14] Mr Kumar was able to check his satisfaction rating in his profile on the Uber app.

• [15] On 25 February 2025, Uber sent a low ratings education notice to Mr Kumar. It stated:

"Your satisfaction rating is low, here's how to improve

The average Satisfaction Rating in your city is 85%

We want to share some tips with you to help improve your satisfaction rating.

Delivery people in Brisbane have an average rating of 85%. The target minimum rating in your city is 85% and you are required to meet the minimum rating in your city to keep delivering with Uber Eats.

• Follow drop-off instructions, and confirm with customers when the instructions are confusing: customers will often communicate in the app whether they want you to meet them at their door, or drop off the order in a certain location. Take extra care when delivering to apartments: if need be, communicate with the customer to ensure you find the correct location.
• Being respectful: being respectful in your interactions with customers may help encourage more positive ratings.

Avoid unnecessary detours or long trips: while customers understand sometimes their order may be late due to circumstances outside of your control and safety shouldn't be compromised, if the customer sees you taking long detours or pauses during the trip, they'll be much more likely to give a thumbs down.

• Take care with the order: making sure to deliver the customer's order in good condition will encourage more thumbs ups. Additionally, be careful with non-food deliveries as they may be fragile.

Want to learn more? Opt in to the voluntary order accuracy, order quality, or drop-off education module here.

As a reminder, there is a minimum rating in each city. Delivery People are required to maintain ratings above the minimum rating for their city to keep their access to the Uber Eats platform. In your city, the minimum rating for Delivery People is 85%. If you continue to receive ratings below the minimum average ratings threshold, your account may be at risk for deactivation."

• [16] On 21 March 2025, Uber sent a first deactivation warning to Mr Kumar. It stated:

Your satisfaction rating is below the minimum threshold of 85% for your city. As a reminder, under Uber's Community Guidelines, Delivery People who do not meet the minimum satisfaction rating for their city may lose their access to the Uber Driver app.

If you continue to receive ratings below the minimum average ratings threshold, your account may be at risk of deactivation.

You may seek assistance or support from a person (other than a lawyer acting in a professional capacity) in relation to this message.

For a reminder on how to get great ratings from customers and merchants, read our Delivery Tips and Tricks."

• [17] On 28 March 2025, Uber sent a second deactivation warning to Mr Kumar. It stated:

We previously let you know that your ratings were below the minimum satisfaction rating for your city. However, you have continued to receive low ratings from consumers and merchants. As a reminder, under Uber's Community Guidelines, Delivery People who do not meet the minimum satisfaction rating for their city may lose their access to the Uber Driver app. The minimum satisfaction rating in your city is 85%

Your account will be deactivated if you continue to receive ratings below the minimum average ratings threshold.

You may seek assistance or support from a person (other than a lawyer acting in a professional capacity) in relation to this message.

For a reminder on how to get great ratings from customers and merchants, read our Delivery Tips and Tricks."

• [18] On 3 April 2025, Uber sent a preliminary deactivation notice to Mr Kumar. It stated:

According to your agreement with Uber (which includes adhering to our Community Guidelines), which can be accessed through your profile, you are required to maintain a rating above the minimum average rating in your city.

You are receiving this message because your rating has continued to be below the minimum average rating required for Delivery People in your city and we are considering terminating your access to the Uber Driver app.

Before a final decision is made, we are providing you with the opportunity to respond to this preliminary deactivation notice. During this period we have suspended your access to the platform which takes effect immediately from the time and date of this notice (3 April 2025). Suspension of your access means that you will be unable to accept or complete trips/deliveries during the suspension period.

You may provide an explanation or relevant information regarding the flagged activity. Please respond using the link below within 7 days from the date of this notice to ensure your input is considered.

You may also request a discussion with a representative of Uber Eats. If you wish to do so, please submit your request using the link below within 2 days.

You are entitled to appoint a person (other than a lawyer acting in a professional capacity) to support or represent you during this process.

Once your request has been submitted, a member of our team will begin the review process. Please note, this can take up to 7-10 business days, but it may take longer. We'll send you a message letting you know the outcome of Uber's decision."

• [19] Mr Kumar received the notices issued to him on 25 February 2025, 21 March 2025 and 28 March 2025, but he did not read them until after the preliminary deactivation notice was sent to him on 3 April 2025. Nor did Mr Kumar check his customer satisfaction ratings on the Uber app until he was notified of his deactivation.

• [20] On 3 April 2025, Mr Kumar sent the following response to Uber's preliminary deactivation notice:

This is Rahul kumar. I've had some late deliveries due to traffic and jams, but other than that, I haven't done anything fraudulent. I feel like this isn't the reason my account is restricted. I assure uber team that I will give my best work to uber and customers in future. So please remove the restriction from my accounts.

• [21] Mr Kumar did not request a discussion with a member of the relevant Uber team.

• [22] On 17 April 2025, a member of Uber's Community Operations team considered Mr Kumar's response to the preliminary deactivation notice. The member of Uber's Community Operations team decided that no further reasonable inquiries were warranted.

• [23] On 17 April 2025, a member of Uber's Community Operations team decided that Mr Kumar's access to the Uber app should be deactivated because:

(a) Mr Kumar consistently had an average customer satisfaction rating below the minimum threshold of 85% for the city of Brisbane; and

(b) Mr Kumar's response did not provide adequate information to address the low ratings.

• [24] On 17 April 2025, Uber sent a final deactivation notice to Mr Kumar. It stated:

"Your request has been reviewed, and your account will remain deactivated

After carefully reviewing your account and the information you submitted as part of your deactivation review request, we've decided that your account will remain deactivated for the reasons outlined in the preliminary deactivation notice previously sent to you. The decision is final.

Your preliminary deactivation notice can be found in your email inbox or the inbox of the Uber Driver app."

• [25] At the time of his deactivation, Mr Kumar had an average customer satisfaction rating of 81%. Mr Kumar had an average post-deactivation warning rating of 75%. Further, following his second deactivation warning, Mr Kumar received 10 customer satisfaction ratings with an average rating of 70%.

• [26] Uber considered the data available to it in relation to Mr Kumar's customer satisfaction ratings and found that:

(a) when Mr Kumar filed a report of receiving damaged food from a restaurant, the trip was subsequently cancelled by Uber, a discretionary payment was made to Mr Kumar and no customer rating was recorded for the cancelled trips; and

(b) when Mr Kumar reported that he had experienced network disruptions and frozen navigation, the trip was cancelled and no customer rating was recorded for the cancelled trips.

• [27] On 2 May 2025, Mr Kumar made a request to Uber for his deactivation to be reviewed. Mr Kumar and Uber exchanged messages in relation to this request by Mr Kumar.

• [28] On 3 May 2025, a member of Uber's Community Operations team notified Mr Kumar of Uber's decision to uphold his deactivation because no new information had been provided and it was considered that Mr Kumar was correctly deactivated due to his low ratings.

• [29] Uber's reason for deactivating Mr Kumar related to his conduct in performing work through or by means of the Uber app. As a result, to be taken to comply with the Code, Uber was required to follow the Code process, as set out in Part 2 of the Code, in relation to Uber's proposed deactivation of Mr Kumar (s 7(1) of the Code).

• [30] I am satisfied that Uber complied with section 8 of the Code for the following reasons:

(a) On 21 and 28 March 2025, Uber gave Mr Kumar deactivation warnings, in writing, stating that he was at risk of being deactivated from the Uber app because his satisfaction rating was below the minimum threshold of 85% for the city of Brisbane. This reason for Mr Kumar's potential deactivation related to his conduct; and

(b) The deactivation warnings given to Mr Kumar on 21 and 28 March 2025:

(i) specified the reason, relating to Mr Kumar's conduct, in particular his low customer satisfaction ratings, for which the warnings were given;

(ii) stated that Mr Kumar was at risk of being deactivated from the Uber app if he continued to receive ratings below the minimum average ratings threshold; and

(iii) stated that Mr Kumar may seek assistance or support from a person (other than a lawyer acting in a professional capacity) in relation to the warning.

• [31] Section 9 of the Code is not applicable. Uber does not contend that a deactivation warning was not required to be given to Mr Kumar.

• [32] Division 3 of the Code applied to Mr Kumar's deactivation because Uber gave Mr Kumar a deactivation warning and considered, on reasonable grounds, that deactivation of Mr Kumar was justified on the basis that the reason for the warning (low customer satisfaction ratings) had continued or been repeated (s 10(b) of the Code).

• [33] I am satisfied that Uber complied with section 11 of the Code for the following reasons:

(a) On 3 April 2025, Uber gave Mr Kumar a preliminary deactivation notice that specified the following matters:

(i) the reason for which the notice was given: continuing to be rated below the minimum customer satisfaction rating for Uber Eats' Delivery Partners in the city of Brisbane;

(ii) that Uber was considering terminating Mr Kumar's access to the Uber app;

(iii) that Mr Kumar had a right to respond to the notice within 7 days and submit a request, within 2 days, for a discussion with a representative of Uber. These were reasonable periods of time in the circumstances; and

(iv) that Mr Kumar was entitled to appoint a person to provide him with support or representation; and

(b) The preliminary deactivation notice given by Uber to Mr Kumar included sufficient information to enable a reasonable person in the position of Mr Kumar to understand the matters mentioned in s 11(1) of the Code.

• [34] I am satisfied that Uber suspended Mr Kumar's access to the Uber app in a manner consistent with section 12 of the Code, for the following reasons:

(a) Mr Kumar's suspension took effect at the same time Uber gave Mr Kumar a preliminary deactivation notice (ss 12(2) & (4) of the Code); and

(b) On 3 April 2025, Uber notified Mr Kumar, in writing and as part of the preliminary deactivation notice, of the time and day from which the suspension would take effect (immediately from the time and date of the preliminary deactivation notice) and the consequences of the suspension for Mr Kumar's access to the Uber app (Mr Kumar would be unable to accept or complete trips/deliveries during the suspension period) (s 12(3) of the Code).

• [35] I am satisfied that Uber complied with section 13 of the Code for the following reasons:

(a) On 3 April 2025, Mr Kumar responded, in writing, to the preliminary deactivation notice given to him by Uber (s 13(1) of the Code);

(b) Mr Kumar did not request to discuss the preliminary deactivation notice with a representative of Uber (s 13(4) of the Code);

(c) A human representative of Uber's Community Operations team considered Mr Kumar's response to the preliminary deactivation notice (s 13(7) of the Code); and

(d) A human representative of Uber's Community Operations team decided, reasonably in my view, that no further inquiries were reasonably warranted after considering Mr Kumar's response (s 13(8) of the Code).

• [36] I am satisfied that Uber complied with section 14(1) and (2) of the Code for the following reasons:

(a) After giving a preliminary deactivation notice to Mr Kumar and complying with the applicable requirements in s 13, Uber decided, on 17 April 2025, to terminate Mr Kumar's access to the Uber app (s 14(1) of the Code); and

(b) On 17 April 2025, Uber notified Mr Kumar, in writing, of its decision to terminate his access to the Uber app. Because this notification was provided on the same day as the decision to terminate was made, the notification clearly took place 'as soon as practicable' (s 14(2) of the Code).

• [37] Section 14(4) of the Code is concerned with valid reason, which in this case brings into question whether, under s 19(2) of the Code, an employee-like worker has failed or refused to meet a reasonable requirement imposed by the digital labour platform operator. Ms Fairlie gave the following unchallenged evidence, which I accept, in relation to the reasonableness of Uber's requirement that Uber Eats Delivery Partners in Brisbane achieve a minimum average customer satisfaction rating of 85%:

(a) An Uber Eats customer can give a Delivery Partner a thumbs up or a thumbs down rating after the Delivery Partner has delivered goods to the customer. Once the customer has selected thumbs up or thumbs down, the customer has the option of selecting different reasons for their rating. For example, a customer who has selected thumbs up may select reasons such as "perfect handover", "quick efficient courier", "delivered care", "great communication", and "friendly service". A customer who has selected thumbs down may select reasons such as "poor communication", "rush", "items damaged", "poor communication", "missed instructions", "left in wrong spot", "packed poorly", "bad replacements", "unprofessional" and "missing items". If a Delivery Partner accepts a job where they are required to attend a supermarket and select items according to a list provided by the customer, the reasons from which the customer may select to support a thumbs down rating of a Delivery Partner differ from the reasons which may be selected if the Delivery Partner is delivering food from a restaurant to the customer. The reasons from which a customer may select to support a thumbs down rating for a Delivery Partner who has attended a supermarket and selected items according to a list provided by the customer include "packed poorly" and "bad replacements". These reasons are not available in relation to a thumbs down rating for a Delivery Partner who has delivered food from a restaurant to the customer.

(b) Historically, only about 10% to 12% of all deliveries by Uber Eats Delivery Partners are given a thumbs up or thumbs down rating by the customer. The other 88% to 90% of deliveries are not given any rating by the customer. The customer can also rate the restaurant that supplied the food delivered to them by the Uber Eats Delivery Partner.

(c) A customer can see on the Uber app when their food has been prepared by a restaurant, when it is collected by the Uber Eats Delivery Partner from the restaurant, the route the Delivery Partner is taking to deliver the food to the customer's address, and the window of time within which the delivery is expected to take place. This window of time may be updated during the preparation of the food or the delivery of the goods, including when the restaurant takes longer than expected to prepare the food or heavy traffic causes the delivery journey to take longer than expected. This transparency assists a customer to be able to select appropriate reasons for rating a Delivery Partner as thumbs up or thumbs down for a particular delivery.

(d) A Delivery Partner's last 100 customer ratings are used to calculate their average customer satisfaction rating. For example, if a Delivery Partner's last 100 customer ratings include 90 thumbs up ratings and 10 thumbs down ratings, the Delivery Partner will have an average customer satisfaction rating of 90%.

(e) Uber requires its Uber Eats Delivery Partners in Brisbane to maintain an average minimum customer satisfaction rating of 85%. The figure of 85% has been selected by Uber on the basis of various "data points", including:

• how customers typically rate Uber Eats Delivery Partners in the city of Brisbane. More than 9 out of 10 customers in Brisbane who rate a delivery by an Uber Eats Driver Partner give the Driver Partner a thumbs up rating;

• the average customer satisfaction rating for Uber Eats' Delivery Partners in Brisbane, where Mr Kumar operated, is 92% to 93%;

• Uber's data indicates that defective orders (i.e. missing items or damaged items), customers complaints and unprofessional conduct issues by Uber Eats Delivery Partners tends to spike (in the order of about 40%) once a Delivery Partner's average customer satisfaction rating is 85% or below;

• only about 2% to 3% of Uber Eats Delivery Partners in Brisbane fall below an average customer satisfaction rating of 85%; and

• recognising the fact that some reasons for customers giving an Uber Eats Delivery Partner a thumbs down rating are outside the control or responsibility of the Delivery Partner.

(f) Most capital cities in Australia have a minimum satisfaction rating of about 85% imposed by Uber. The minimum satisfaction rating imposed by Uber on Delivery Partners in some regional areas is above or below 85%, depending on factors such as the average satisfaction rating for Uber Eats Delivery Partners in that region and the point at which Uber experiences a significant increase in defective orders, customers complaints and unprofessional conduct issues by Uber Eats Delivery Partners.

(g) If an Uber Eats Delivery Partner in Brisbane has an average customer satisfaction rating which falls below 85%, the Delivery Partner is warned about the requirement to meet the minimum average customer satisfaction rating, given a chance to improve their satisfaction rating, and given educational information to assist them to improve their rating.

(h) Delivery Partners can access information about their customer satisfaction ratings in the Uber app at any time.

• [38] At the time of his deactivation, Mr Kumar had an average customer satisfaction rating of 81%. After his first deactivation warning, Mr Kumar had an average customer satisfaction rating of 75%. After his second deactivation warning, Mr Kumar received 10 ratings with an average rating of 70%. In part, this may be due to the fact that Mr Kumar did not read the deactivation warnings which he acknowledged were sent to him, or the educational information directed at assisting him to improve his satisfaction rating, until after he was deactivated.

• [39] Mr Kumar's initial response to the preliminary deactivation notice was that he had experienced "some late deliveries due to traffic and jams". After his deactivation and during these proceedings, Mr Kumar has advanced a range of other reasons for his low satisfaction rating, including that restaurants prioritised service to customers in the restaurant at the expense of Uber Eats customers, restaurants were responsible for damaged or missing items from deliveries, he had been delayed making deliveries because it was difficult to find a park near the customer's house, and he had been delayed making deliveries due to network disruptions and the Uber system being frozen. Uber investigated Mr Kumar's allegations of network disruptions and damaged food. Uber found that when Mr Kumar reported that he had experienced network disruptions and frozen navigation, the delivery was cancelled and no customer rating was recorded for the cancelled trips. Uber also found that when Mr Kumar filed a report to Uber of receiving damaged food from a restaurant, the delivery was cancelled by Uber, a discretionary payment was made to Mr Kumar, and no customer rating was recorded for the cancelled deliveries.

• [40] I accept that there is scope for a thumbs down rating given by a particular customer to Mr Kumar to be an unfair rating. In particular, the rating may (a) be harsh in all the circumstances, (b) not properly reflect what actually happened, or (c) wrongly place blame on Mr Kumar for something outside his control or the responsibility of another person. For example, if damaged food is delivered by Mr Kumar to a customer, the damage may have been caused by a lack of care on Mr Kumar's part or by the restaurant damaging the food in the process of preparing the food or packing it for delivery. Because restaurants usually place food into a bag and staple the top of the bag together, Delivery Partners do not have an opportunity to inspect food before it is collected by the Delivery Partner to be transported to the customer. Similarly, missing items from a delivery may be the fault of the restaurant if it does not place all items of food ordered by the customer into the bag for collection by the Delivery Partner. On the other hand, missing items from a list of groceries to be selected by a Delivery Partner from a supermarket and delivered to the customer may be fairly attributed to the Delivery Partner.

• [41] Notwithstanding the scope for a thumbs down rating given by a particular customer to Mr Kumar to be an unfair rating, I am satisfied that the requirement for Mr Kumar to maintain an average customer satisfaction rating of at least 85% was, judged objectively, reasonable in all the circumstances. First, there is an evident and intelligible justification for the requirement to maintain an average customer satisfaction rating of at least 85%. In particular, the rating system "improves accountability and helps create a respectful, safe and transparent environment for everyone."[9] Secondly, Mr Kumar was, at all times, on notice through the terms of his agreement with Uber and Uber's Community Guidelines of the requirement to maintain a minimum average customer satisfaction rating and that he may lose access to the Uber app if he failed to meet the minimum average customer satisfaction rating for the city in which he was operating. Thirdly, 97% to 98% of Uber Eats Delivery Partners in Brisbane maintain an average customer satisfaction rating of at least 85%. This puts Mr Kumar into the bottom 2% to 3% of Uber Eats Delivery Partners in Brisbane. Fourthly, data analysed by Uber shows that where an Uber Eats Delivery Partner's average customer satisfaction rating fails to meet the minimum requirement, being 85% in Brisbane, there will be a significant increase in defective orders (i.e. missing items or damaged items), customers complaints and unprofessional conduct issues by Uber Eats Delivery Partners. Fifthly, the fact that an individual customer rating may have been unreasonable is ameliorated by the fact that the minimum required customer satisfaction rating for Delivery Partners is an average, calculated on the basis of the Delivery Partner's last 100 customer ratings. Sixthly, even if a Delivery Partner's customer satisfaction rating falls below the 85% threshold, they are not automatically or immediately deactivated. Instead, the Delivery Partner is warned by Uber about the level of their customer satisfaction rating, given a chance to improve their rating, given educational information to assist them to improve their customer satisfaction rating, and can monitor their customer satisfaction rating at any time in the Uber app. Mr Kumar's customer satisfaction rating worsened after he was warned about the issue. Uber considered, rightly, that his performance was trending in the wrong direction at the time he was deactivated. Seventhly, most of the reasons put forward by Mr Kumar at different times for his poor customer satisfaction rating related to delays in making deliveries, yet when the last 100 customer satisfaction ratings are analysed, the reason of "rush" only appears on about four occasions and there are no other reasons complaining of a delay in delivering goods to a customer.[10] Common reasons provided by customers for their thumbs down rating of Mr Kumar over his last 100 customer ratings include "poor communication", "missed instructions", and "left in wrong spot". Where the reason of "missing items" was given by a customer to support their thumbs down rating of Mr Kumar in his last 100 customer ratings, it is apparent from the other reasons given by these customers, such as "packed poorly" and "bad replacements", that the delivery was for items from a store such as a supermarket, not the delivery of food from a restaurant.[11] Accordingly, any such errors of "missing items" could not have been the responsibility of a third party such as the restaurant that prepared food for delivery by Mr Kumar.

• [42] As to section 19(2) of the Code, I am satisfied that Uber's requirement for Mr Kumar to maintain an average customer satisfaction rating of at least 85%, which he failed to meet, was:

(a) a requirement of the agreement (s 19(2)(a)), a requirement of the conditions of use of Uber's digital labour platform (s 19(2)(b)), and a requirement of Uber's standards in relation to quality, service level or performance (s 19(2)(c)). This is so because (i) clause 5.1 of the agreement required Mr Kumar to comply with the Community Guidelines, which informed Mr Kumar that he may lose access to the Uber app if he did not meet the minimum customer satisfaction rating for the city in which he operated, and (ii) clause 14.2(b) of the agreement permitted Uber to terminate the agreement if Mr Kumar breached the Community Guidelines;

(b) reasonable, for the reasons given in paragraph [41] above; and

(c) known to Mr Kumar as a result of communications by Uber to Mr Kumar.

• [43] Accordingly, the requirements of s 19(2) of the Code are satisfied. This means that Uber's reason for deactivating Mr Kumar "may constitute a valid reason for the deactivation" of Mr Kumar (s 19(1) of the Code). I am satisfied that Mr Kumar's failure to meet the minimum average customer satisfaction rating meets the standard of being a valid reason, because the reason relied on by Uber is properly characterised as one that is sound, defensible and well-founded, not capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced, involves something more than a minor failing or trivial misdemeanour, and is of sufficient gravity or seriousness to justify deactivation. It follows that I am satisfied that the reason for the termination of Mr Kumar's access to the Uber app is a valid reason within the meaning of s 14(4) of the Code.

• [44] I am satisfied on the evidence before the Commission that Uber considers on reasonable grounds that its reason for terminating Mr Kumar's access to the Uber app has been established (s 14(4)(b) of the Code). That Uber considers that its reason for terminating Mr Kumar's access to the Uber app has been established is evident from the evidence given by Ms Fairlie. The reasonable grounds for that belief are apparent from the matters described in paragraphs [37] to [41] above.

• [45] I am satisfied that Uber complied with section 14(5) of the Code for the following reasons:

(a) On 17 April 2025, Uber gave Mr Kumar a final deactivation notice that:

(i) stated that Uber had decided that Mr Kumar's account would remain deactivated, which had the effect of informing Mr Kumar that Uber had decided to terminate his access to the Uber app;

(ii) specified the reason for the termination, by referring Mr Kumar to the reasons outlined in the preliminary deactivation notice previously sent to him;

(iii) specified the time and day on which the termination would take effect, by informing Mr Kumar that his account would remain deactivated and the deactivation would take effect immediately on receipt of the email from Uber; and

(iv) specified when and how any final payments owing to Mr Kumar would be made, by informing him that his final payment would be deposited into his account during the next payment cycle.

(b) The final deactivation notice given by Uber to Mr Kumar contained sufficient information to enable a reasonable person in the position of Mr Kumar to understand the matters mentioned in s 14(5) of the Code.

• [46] I am satisfied that Uber used its reasonable endeavours to ensure that the process it was required to conduct in accordance with Part 2 of the Code was carried out within a reasonable time frame and Mr Kumar was given a reasonable time to exercise his right of response under s 13 of the Code (s 15 of the Code).

• [47] No issue arises in this case in relation to sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 or 22 of the Code.

• [48] For the reasons given, I am satisfied that Uber complied with the Code in relation to its deactivation of Mr Kumar. Because Mr Kumar's deactivation was consistent with the Code, he has not been unfairly deactivated (s 536LF(c) of the Act). It follows that Mr Kumar's application for an unfair deactivation remedy must be dismissed.

Ms R Nocka, solicitor, on behalf of the Respondent

[1] King v Freshmore (Vic) Pty Ltd (unreported, AIRCFB, Ross VP, Williams SDP, Hingley C, 17 March 2000) Print S4213 [24]

[2] Selvachandran v Peterson Plastics Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 333; (1995) 62 IR 371 at 373

[3] Rabbi Pinchas Ash v Chabad Institutions of Victoria Limited [2020] FWCFB 44 at [18]

[4] CFMMEU v Mt Arthur Coal [2021] FWCFB 6059 at [71]- [80] & [259]-[264]

[9] Hearing Book at p 125 (final paragraph)

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer