//
[2026] FWC 108
General information, not legal advice.
Fair Work Commission
2026-01-15
Original judgment source is linked above.
s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy
Application for an unfair deactivation remedy -whether deactivation complied with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code - application dismissed.
[1] Mr Umair Ayyub (Applicant) has applied to the Fair Work Commission under s536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 for an unfair deactivation remedy. Portier Pacific Pty Ltd T/A Uber Eats (Respondent or Uber Eats) is the respondent to the application.
[2] There is no dispute between the parties and I am satisfied that the Applicant was protected from unfair deactivation at the time Uber Eats deactivated him and that his application was made within the time period required.
[3] The matter for determination is whether the Applicant's deactivation was consistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code (Code). Section 536LJ(3) of the Act provides that 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.
[4] The application was heard on 20 November 2025. The Applicant and Ms Ama Somaratna (Legal Officer of the Transport Workers' Union of Australia), gave evidence in support of the Applicant's case. Ms Emilee Fairlie (Senior Manager Industrial Relations), gave evidence for the Respondent. Both parties were granted permission pursuant to s 596(2) of the Act to be represented by Counsel.
[5] For the reasons that follow, I find that the deactivation was consistent with the Code and was therefore not unfair.
[6] The Applicant accepted the terms of the Services Agreement with Uber on 4 September 2018, in which he confirmed he had read and acknowledged the Respondent's Community Guidelines. The Agreement included a section about how "ratings" worked, which provides that the Respondent was not required to verify any feedback or ratings given by customers. On 31 January 2024 the Applicant accepted the terms of a further Services Agreement and again confirmed he had read and accepted the Community Guidelines.
[7] The Community Guidelines relevantly provide that not following the Guidelines can result in the loss of access to part or all of the Uber Marketplace Platform. In terms of ratings, the Guidelines provide that there is a minimum average rating in each city and if a driver does not meet the minimum average rating, then they may lose access to the Platform.
[8] On 21 February 2025 the Respondent sent a "low ratings education notice" to the Applicant which stated that:
"Your satisfaction rating is low, here's how to improve. The average Satisfaction Rating in your city is 93%.
Hello Umair,
We want to share some tips with you to help improve your satisfaction rating.
Delivery People in Canberra have an average rating of 93%. 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.
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 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.
Click here for more information about ratings in your city"
[9] At the time this notice was sent, the Applicant's overall rating was 81%, the running rating was 77.2% and the last 10 rated trips was 60%.
[10] On 21 March 2025 the Respondent sent a 'ratings deactivation warning' to the Applicant in the following terms:
"Low satisfaction ratings. Your account is at risk.
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 for 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.
[11] At the time this warning was issued, the Applicant's overall rating was 76%, his running rating was 83.3% and the last 10 rated trips was 80%.
[12] On 16 May 2025 the Respondent sent a "final ratings deactivation warning" to the Applicant as follows:
You received communications in error on 14 May 2025 regarding your satisfaction ratings. Please disregard any communications sent on 14 May 2025 and refer to this message for the current status of your satisfaction rating. To clarify, if you continue to receive ratings below the minimum average threshold, your account will be at risk of deactivation and you could lose access to the Uber Driver app.
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 customers 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 to 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.
[13] At the time this warning was sent, the Applicant's overall rating was 78%, the running rating was 82.5% and the last 10 rated trips was 80%.
[14] A preliminary deactivation notice was sent to the Applicant on 30 May 2025 which stated that:
"Your account is at risk of deactivation.
Hello Umair,
According to your agreement with Uber (which includes adhering to our Community Guidelines), which can be assessed 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 Deliverer 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 (30 May 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 the Uber's decision." [Hyperlinks removed]
[15] At this time, the Applicant's overall rating was 80%.
[16] The Applicant responded to the preliminary deactivation notice on or about 31 May 2025 as follows:
I'm writing to request a review of my account due to low ratings. I've been delivering with Uber for a long time and truly enjoy it, but I work in Canberra city centre where there are constant challenges. One of the major issues right now is ongoing road work - different streets are blocked every day, which makes navigation and timing extremely difficult.
On top of that, the city is full of high-rise buildings, limited parking, and heavy traffic. To avoid fines or blocking roads, I often wait until a safe parking spot becomes available at restaurants, which can sometimes cause small delays. When delivering to buildings, I usually ask customers to come downstairs for the order, especially when there is no clear assets or intercom. Some customers are fine with it, others unfortunately get upset and leave low ratings.
Reception issues are also common in dense building areas, and when the app glitches, it causes delays that are out of my control. Additionally, I've had to be cautious around properties with large or unleashed dogs - for safety, I called the customer instead of approaching the door, but not everyone appreciates that.
Despite these challenges, I've been making a real effort to improve. My rating has already gone up from 4.77 to 4.80 in just the past couple of weeks. I genuinely care about the work and try to give my best on every delivery. I respectfully request another chance - if reactivated, I'm confident you'll see a real difference.
I've had a long and committed journey with Uber, and I'm just asking for one more chance to keep going.
Recently, I switched to a different mobile network, but it had really poor reception in the areas I usually drive - especially around the city. Because of that, I was having connection issues which probably affected my overall performance. I've now changed back to a more reliable network that works much better where I drive.
I also plan to focus more on areas like Tuggeranong, where I live. It's more open with fewer buildings, so the signal is much more stable, and I can provide a better experience for riders.
My rating was already starting to go up, and I truly believe that if I'm given even just one more month, I'll be able to show real improvement.
I'm happy to switch zones or even return to UberX if that helps. I've always valued driving with Uber and I really hope to continue."
[17] On 3 June 2025 the Applicant spoke with a representative of the Respondent to provide a further response and reasons why he should not be deactivated.
[18] On 8 July 2025 the Applicant was notified of the decision to permanently deactivate his access to the Platform due to low ratings. The notification was in the following terms:
After carefully reviewing your account and the information you submitted as part of your response, we've decided to terminate your access to the Uber Driver app for the reasons outlined in the preliminary deactivation notice previously sent to you. This decision is final.
Your preliminary deactivation notice can be found in your email inbox or the inbox of the Uber Driver app.
This deactivation will take effect immediately upon receipt of this email.
Your final payment will be deposited into your account during the next payment cycle.
As your account has been deactivated, the creation of another account on the Uber platform will be considered fraudulent activity and is prohibited."
[19] I accept that the Applicant received the notices above.
[20] The Applicant made a request that the decision to deactivate him be reviewed however the decision was upheld.
[21] The evidence given and submissions made by the parties was detailed and is only briefly outlined here.
[22] During the hearing, the Applicant complained that the rating system was not transparent and he was not given any feedback about why ratings were poor. He said the Platform did not provide a mechanism to understand, respond to or dispute a customer rating or feedback.
[23] He also said that some circumstances were outside of his control, such as poor packaging from restaurants or vague instructions from customers, and that from 2024 he had problems with the internet and frequent malfunctions of the Uber app. Further, issues with finding suitable parking when making deliveries was challenging, especially in Canberra's inner suburbs and city centre.
[24] The Applicant gave evidence that he had numerous incidents of being abused by customers which he raised with the Respondent however he never received any meaningful response. He said he also reported delays by restaurants to the Respondent on a regular basis.
[25] In cross examination, the Applicant confirmed he was able to check his rating in the app. He also confirmed that from 2024 until he was deactivated, the Applicant did not raise any network or connectivity issues with the Respondent.
[26] The Applicant's submissions included that the rating system was inflexible, arbitrary and a manifestly flawed means of policing the conduct of drivers, including because the 85% minimum satisfaction rating was entirely arbitrary. He noted that the vast majority of customers do not give ratings at all. He submitted that the process was automated, at least until a preliminary deactivation notice was given when a human representative becomes involved. He pointed to the fact that a percentage figure does not take account of the actual number of trips the driver does where no complaints are made.
[27] Ms Fairlie's evidence, which I accept, went into some detail as to the rating system and the triggers required before the notices and warnings are sent.
[28] Ms Fairlie was cross examined at length about the rating system. She confirmed that the average minimum rating was introduced in early 2025. She agreed that the ratings given by customers are not verified by the Respondent, which is unsurprising given the terms of the Services Agreement.
[29] The Code requires that, before deactivating a driver, the Respondent must give the driver a deactivation warning stating that they risk being deactivated for a reason related to the worker's conduct or capacity.
[30] I am satisfied that the Respondent complied with section 8 of the Code given it gave the Applicant deactivation warnings on 21 March and 16 May 2025, following an 'education notice' on 21 February 2025. The deactivation warnings stated that the Applicant was a risk of being deactivated because his satisfaction rating was lower than the minimum threshold of 85%. The warnings also advised the Applicant that he could seek assistance or support from a person in relation to the warning.
[31] I note the Applicant's submissions that the warning did not specifically reference that the person could be "a delegate or an employee of an organisation" which is included in section 8(2)(c) of the Code, which was said to be fatal to the Respondent's case. I disagree. Putting aside the fact that this same warning has been found in other decisions of the Commission to meet the requirements of section 8, I am satisfied that the warning did state that the person could seek assistance or support in relation to the deactivation warning. That is what is required from the section, noting that the person from whom support might be sought could be a delegate or employee of an organisation.
[32] I am satisfied that the Respondent complied with section 11 of the Code given it provided the Applicant with a preliminary deactivation notice on 30 May 2025 which set out the reason the notice was given, that being his continued low ratings, that the Respondent was considering deactivating the Applicant, and giving him an opportunity to respond. It also stated that the Applicant was entitled to have a support person or representation. In my view, the preliminary deactivation notice included sufficient information to enable a reasonable person to understand the matters set out in section 11(1) of the Code.
[33] I am satisfied that the suspension of the Applicant was consistent with section 12 of the Code given the content of the preliminary deactivation notice set out earlier.
[34] I am satisfied that the Respondent complied with section 13 of the Code given the Applicant did respond in writing to the preliminary deactivation notice and did have a conversation with a representative of the Respondent before a final decision was made.
[35] In terms of section 14 of the Code, I am satisfied that the Respondent complied with this section because it decided to deactivate the Applicant after giving him a preliminary deactivation notice and complied with section 13 of the Code. It also notified him of its decision to deactivate him shortly after the decision was made to do so.
[37] Accordingly, I find there was a valid reason as contemplated by section 19(2) of the Code.
[38] In making these findings, I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant. I note that other decisions of the Commission have found compliance with the Code in very similar circumstances.
[39] If I am wrong that the deactivation was consistent with the Code, I would have found that the deactivation was not unfair because non-compliance with the 85% threshold would constitute a valid reason for the deactivation, and the deactivation was otherwise procedurally fair.
[41] Given the Respondent complied with the Code, the application is dismissed.
M Minucci of Counsel for Portier Pacific Pty Ltd T/A Uber Eats.
[1] See Rahul Kumar v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025 FWC 2275] and Hasnain Ali v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025 FWC 3243].
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer