s.536LU-Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - eligibility criteria not met - dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Fair Work Commission's initiative

• [1] Mr Kiani applied for an unfair deactivation remedy under s.536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) on 12 June 2025.
• [2] Mr Kiani stated in his application form that his deactivation from the Respondent's digital labour platform took effect on 20 May 2025.
• [3] In his application form he stated that:

'I was a [sic] uber driver in 2018/19 and I requested Uber to close my account...'.

• [4] Mr Kiani applied for reactivation of his account earlier this year and says in his application form that Uber:

'They accepted I am eligible for reactivation but never reactivated me.'

• [5] On 10 July 2025, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) contacted Mr Kiani by telephone and he confirmed that the date his Uber account had been deactivated was sometime in 2020, and that he became eligible for reactivation on 5 March 2025 but that this had not occurred.
• [6] On 10 July 2025, Chambers emailed Mr Kiani informing him that, based on the information he had provided, that the Commissioner's preliminary view was that he did not meet the eligibility criteria to make an application for an unfair deactivation remedy. The email invited Mr Kiani to advise Chambers of any reasons as to why his application should not be dismissed under s.587(1)(c). The Respondent was also invited to reply.
• [7] Mr Kiani replied on 10 July 2025 and advised that:

'As I mentioned before I negotiated with uber and I might have misquoted [sic] few words about reactivation'...

... 'As per my understanding I'm eligible for the appeal.'

• [8] On 14 July 2025, the Respondent replied and advised, amongst other things, that the Applicant's account was deactivated on 13 January 2020, the Applicant has not performed any work for the Respondent since 17 December 2018, and that in a message to Uber Support on 30 June 2025, the Applicant acknowledged that his account was never reactivated by the Respondent.
• [9] On 21 July 2025, Chambers emailed Mr Kiani informing him that it remained the Commissioner's view that he was not eligible to apply for an unfair deactivation, and accordingly his application ought be dismissed. The Applicant was further advised that if he did not agree with this view, to reply to Chambers, including by providing relevant material, by 12pm Tuesday 22 July 2025.
• [10] Mr Kiani did not provide a response to the email of 21 July 2025 and, to date, has not made further contact with the Commission.
• [11] A person applying for an unfair deactivation remedy under the Act must have had their deactivation take place on or after 26 February 2025. The material before the Commission indicates that Mr Kiani has not satisfied this requirement and, therefore, I am persuaded that his application has no reasonable prospects of success. As such, Mr Kiani's unfair deactivation remedy application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act.
• [12] An Order to this effect is issued with this decision.[1]

[1] PR789942.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer