Satbir Singh [2026] FWC 409 (9 February 2026)

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy -applicant not protected from unfair deactivation - requirement to have been performing work on a regular basis for a period of at least six months not met- application dismissed.

[1] Section 536LG of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) outlines that a person has been deactivated from a digital labour platform if they performed digital platform work through or by means of the digital labour platform, and the digital labour platform operator modified, suspended, or terminated their access to the digital labour platform, and the person is no longer able to perform work under an existing services contract.

[2] Satbir Singh (the Applicant) has made an unfair deactivation application to the Fair Work Commission pursuant to s.536LU of the Act by filing a Form F89 - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy (Form F89). There were various names used to identify the respondent to the application in the Form 89. In naming the digital labour operator that deactivated him, the Applicant nominated the generically used name, Uber, and recorded its legal name as being Uber Australia Pty Ltd.

[3] A Form F89A - Response to an Application for an unfair deactivation remedy (Form F89A) was received from Portier Pacific Pty Ltd, on the basis that it was the other party to the services agreement entered into with the Applicant on 26 July 2023, and most recently on 1 February 2024. It was advised that under the services agreement, the Applicant provided delivery services through the digital labour platform operated by Portier Pacific Pty Ltd, known as the Uber delivery platform. The Applicant acknowledged he entered into this services agreement and I am satisfied this was the case. Accordingly, I have determined that it is appropriate to exercise the discretionary power in s.586 of the Act and correct the name of the respondent to the Applicant's unfair deactivation application so that it is henceforth recorded as being Portier Pacific Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[4] The Applicant commenced performing work for the Respondent on 8 September 2023. On 9 May 2024, he was notified that his account had been deactivated. This was day upon which he completed his final delivery on the Uber delivery platform. The Applicant confirmed that he performed no work after 9 May 2024.

[5] On 29 September 2025, the Applicant was sent two initial messages suggesting that he had been driving as an uberx driver, that his account had been reactivated and that he could thereafter access the Uber app and "continue driving as an uberxdriver." At this point, the Applicant believed that his account had been reactivated. This was particularly so because he had been in the process of applying to be an uberx driver. Uberx is related to the Uber driver platform, which is operated by the entity Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd. The Respondent asserted that the Applicant had never signed a services agreement with Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd and has never undertaken trips as a driver on the Uber driver platform. The Applicant confirmed that this was the case.

[6] A third message sent to the Applicant on 29 September 2025 advised that the Respondent's systems had detected that multiple accounts had been registered under the Applicant's name and as such, access to his account was restricted. On 30 September 2025, the Applicant was sent another message. This stated that his access "to this account" had been removed because Uber's systems had identified that he had registered for multiple accounts.

[7] Part 3A-3 of the Act governs the unfair deactivation of employee-like workers from digital labour platforms. Section 536LP(1) of the Act provides that the Commission may order a remedy for unfair deactivation if it is satisfied that a person was protected from unfair deactivation at the time of being deactivated and has been unfairly deactivated.

[8] Section 536LD of the Act outlines when a person is protected from unfair deactivation, as follows:

"536LD A person is protected from unfair deactivation at a time if, at that time:

(i) performs work through or by means of a digital labour platform operated by a digital labour platform operator; or

(ii) performs work under a services contract arranged or facilitated through or by means of a digital labour platform operated by a digital labour platform operator; and

(c) the person has been performing work through or by means of that 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 6 months."

[9] Section 536LD(c) requires a person to have been performing work on the relevant platform for a 'period' of at least 6 months, not for a cumulative total of 6 months.

[10] Having regard to the following considerations, the Applicant is not a person "protected from unfair deactivation":

• [11] Part 3A-3 of the Act governing unfair deactivation applies to deactivations that occur after "commencement."[1]

1. The relevant definition of "commencement" is found in clause 123 of Part 18 of Schedule 1 to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024, reading as follows:

"the commencement of item 238 of Part 16 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act."

1. The "amending Act" is defined as the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024.

1. Section 2(1) of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 provides that the commencement of item 238 of Part 16 of Schedule 1 was 6 months after that Act received Royal Assent on 26 February 2024.

1. With its "commencement" therefore being 26 August 2024, Part 3A-3 of the Act applies to deactivations that occur after 26 August 2024.

1. Section 536LD(c) of the Act provides that a person is "protected from unfair deactivation" if they have worked through or by means of a digital labour platform on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months at the time of their deactivation.

1. Clause 124(2) of Part 18 of Schedule 1 to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 relevantly provides:

"For the purpose of determining under paragraph 536LD(c) whether an employee like worker has been performing work for a period of at least 6 months, a period or periods before commencement are not to be counted."

[12] Even though the Applicant performed work as a driver from as early as 8 September 2023, clause 124(2) of Part 18 of Schedule 1 to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 operates to exclude the work he performed before 26 August 2024. As such, the work performed by the Applicant prior to 26 August 2024 cannot be counted for the purpose of determining whether he had been performing work on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months.

[13] Moreover, having commenced operation on 26 August 2024, s.536LD(c) operates to prevent the unfair deactivation provisions having application to the Applicant unless he was deactivated after 26 February 2025. As such, the Applicant is not a person protected from unfair deactivation when it comes to the deactivation that occurred on 9 May 2024.

[14] An alternate argument that the Applicant was deactivated on 30 September 2025 does not assist him. This is because even if it was accepted that the Applicant was deactivated from the Uber driver platform operated by Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd on 30 September 2025, the following factors prevent him from being a person protected from unfair deactivation:

1. Any work performed by the Applicant prior to 26 August 2024 cannot be counted for the purpose of determining whether he had been performing work on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months; and

1. The Applicant performed no work on either the Uber delivery platform or the Uber driver platform after 9 May 2024;

[15] Given these factors, the Applicant was not a person who had been "performing work through or by means of that 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 6 months" as of 30 September 2025.

[16] It is acknowledged that the Applicant is aggrieved by the decision made to deactivate him from both the Uber delivery platform and the Uber driver platform. It is also acknowledged that he challenges the premise of his deactivation and implores Uber to reactivate his account. Indeed, much of the Applicant's material and oral submissions focussed on the merits of the application he seeks to pursue. However, s.536LW of the Act requires me to decide certain other matters before considering the merits of the Applicant's application. In this case, it is not necessary to determine whether the unfair deactivation application was made within the period required in s.536LU(3) of the Act (s.536LW(a)) because the Applicant is not protected from unfair deactivation (s.536LW(b)). As the Applicant is not protected from unfair deactivation, his application must be dismissed.

Melbourne (in person and by Video using Microsoft Teams).

[1] Clause 124(1) of Part 18 of Schedule 1 to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer