s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - Low satisfaction ratings - Compliance with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code -application dismissed

• [1] On 6 September 2025, Waqar Ahmad Dar (Applicant) filed an application for an unfair deactivation remedy pursuant to s.536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) against Portier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber Eats (Respondent).

• [2] On 11 December 2025 the application was heard. Mr Dar was self-represented and gave evidence. Ms Emilee Fairlie, Senior Manager Industrial Relations at Uber Australia Pty Ltd gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent was granted leave to be legally represented.

• [3] Mr Dar was an employee-like worker for the purposes of s.15P of the Act. He performed work as a delivery person on the Uber Delivery Platform. Mr Dar entered into a Services Agreement with the Respondent on 15 October 2024 and commenced working on 17 October 2024. Consistent with the terms of the Services Agreement, Mr Dar agreed to comply with the Respondent's Community Guidelines (Guidelines).

• [4] Mr Dar alleges that he had been unfairly deactivated from the Uber Delivery Platform (the Platform) by the Respondent on 3 September 2025.[1] The Respondent submits that the Applicant was deactivated on 3 September 2025 due to low satisfaction ratings and in compliance with Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code) Instrument 2024 (the Code).

• [5] The Respondent has raised two jurisdictional objections to the application:

• The Respondent complied with the Code, and
• The Applicant was not unfairly deactivated as the requirements of s.536LF of the Act have not been met.

• [6] There is no dispute between the parties, and I accept the evidence that the unfair deactivation application was made within 21 days of the deactivation and that Mr Dar is a person protected from unfair deactivation. However, s.536LW of the Act requires a further matter to be considered before the merits, that being whether the deactivation was consistent with the Code.[2]

The Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code) Instrument 2024 (the Code)

• [7] If the Respondent complied with the Code[3] when it deactivated the Applicant from the Platform, the deactivation is in compliance with s.536LJ(3) of the Act. Further the deactivation in such circumstances is not an unfair deactivation under s.536LF.

• [8] Part 2 of the Code deals with the process for deactivation. Relevantly Part 2 provides:

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.

1. 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

(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.

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."

The submissions and evidence in relation to compliance with the Code

• [9] On 6 March 2025, the Respondent sent to the Applicant an in-app message informing him of his low ratings, how to improve and a caution that continued ratings below the minimum average ratings threshold means the account is at risk of deactivation. The in-app message also advised:

• delivery drivers in Launceston have an average rating of 92%;
• the target minimum satisfaction rate for Launceston was 85% to keep delivering for Uber;
• it is required to maintain ratings above the minimum satisfaction rating otherwise the account is at risk of deactivation;
• tips to improve ratings; and

• • provided access to voluntary education modules through a direct link.[4]

• [10] The Applicant gave oral evidence that he took advantage of the education modules and was aware of his low ratings. It is not contested that the Applicant had seen this advice of 6 March 2025.

• [11] The Code requires at section 8 to provide warnings before deactivation which specifies the reason for the conduct or capacity among other requirements. The Respondent tendered into evidence the warnings given in compliance with the requirements set out in section 8 of the Code. Warnings were given to the Applicant on 11 April (Ratings deactivation warning)[5] and 12 May 2025 (Final deactivation warning).[6] In addition, throughout the period of delivering for Uber, the Applicant had access to the Uber Delivery Platform to review his rating.[7] In accordance with section 10 of the Code, the Respondent contends that it was entitled to commence the deactivation process and set out its process in relation to its compliance with sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Code.

• [12] After an overall rating of 74% on 26 August 2025, on the same day, the Respondent sent an in-app message advising of a preliminary deactivation notice which suspended access to the Platform.[8] This notice gave the reason of continued low satisfaction ratings and advises that the Respondent was considering terminating access. But before terminating access the Applicant was given an opportunity to respond to the preliminary deactivation notice with 3 options: provide an explanation through the link within 7 days, request a discussion by using the link within 2 days, or appoint a person to support or represent in the process. Mr Dar gave oral evidence that he only accessed the first option.

• [13] Despite accepting receipt of the ratings advice on 6 March, two warnings (on 11 April and 12 May) and the preliminary deactivation notice on 26 August 2025, Mr Dar submits that the process lacked procedural fairness but substantially the deactivation based on low ratings was unreasonable and unfair. He submits that he had been an active Uber driver from October 2024 until September 2025 and the deactivation has deprived him of an income.

• [14] In relation to the procedural fairness issue, Mr Dar says he was expecting a telephone conversation after his reply to the notice in August 2025. Mr Dar gave evidence that he emailed his response but did not request a follow-up call by any means (use of the link or otherwise) because he assumed a telephone call will follow. He further submits that he did not attempt to call because on one occasion in the past he was on hold for up to an hour.

• [15] In cross examination Mr Dar addressed the reasons for the low satisfaction ratings. He gave evidence that when he delivered food he did not always deliver to the instructed spot at the delivery location because it was dark or was unsure of the spot. He further states that the reason for the low rating could be attributed to the merchant taking too long as well as his unfamiliarity with shorter routes. Mr Dar made submissions regarding his medical condition[9] but he accepts that he withheld this information from the Respondent.

• [16] A member (a human representative) of the Respondent's Community Operations Team reviewed the Applicant's ratings following the warnings and preliminary deactivation notice and determined the low satisfaction ratings was a valid reason for termination of access to the Platform in accordance with section 14(4)(b) of the Code. Ms Fairlie gave evidence of the Respondent's processes and supporting documentation. She further gave evidence that she had reviewed the decision made by the Community Operations Team and says there was nothing in Mr Dar's response to the preliminary deactivation notice that addresses the low ratings requiring further follow-up. Ms Fairlee gave evidence of the reasons given by consumers for their low ratings. She further gave evidence how both the performance of merchants and delivery drivers are rated and tracked on the app. A copy of the report of the last 100 rated trips was tendered into evidence.[10]

• [17] The Respondent notified the Applicant of its decision to deactivate access to the Platform on 3 September 2025.[11] The Respondent submits that the decision to deactivate was on the same day therefore its notification following its decision was as soon as reasonably practicable in accordance with s.14(5) of the Code.

• [18] The Respondent submits that the reason for the deactivation being valid is because the Applicant is required to maintain an average rating of 85% which is reasonable. It submits a rating below 85% presents a risk to customer orders and a risk to the Respondent's business. The failure of the Applicant to meet the average minimum rating, it submits, represents a failure to meet the Respondent's quality service level, which was known to the Applicant. It further contends that the Guidelines and Services Agreement consequently entitle deactivation. The Respondent submits that the reason is valid and consistent with section 19(2) of the Code.

• [19] The Respondent's evidence of the Applicant's low ratings was not contested and shows for the period between 6 March to 11 Aril 2025 it was 64%, on 11 April 2025 the overall rating was 76% and for the period 11 April to 12 May 2025 the rating was 75%. On 12 May the overall rating of 74% was still below the minimum 85%.

• [20] The steps taken to deactivate were not contested and the Respondent submits that the Final deactivation notice contained sufficient information to enable the Applicant to understand the issues in plain English.[12]

• [21] The Respondent also addressed the merits of the application and in doing so confirmed the deactivation[13] and in assessment of s.536LH submits that there was a valid reason relating to capacity or conduct[14] and that it followed the deactivation process set out in Part 2 of the Code,[15] and in accordance with s.536LH(1)(b) of the Act.[16] The Respondent addressed with particular submissions concerning valid reason and the deactivation process. Finally, the Respondent submits that s.536LF(c) does not apply because the deactivation was not inconsistent with the Code.

• [22] The Respondent's objection to the application is on the basis that it complied with the Code and secondly that the requirements of s.536LF of the Act have not been met. I am satisfied that the Respondent complied with the Code process as set out in Part 2 of the Code for the following reasons.

• [23] Section 8 of the Code requires that Mr Dar was given deactivation warnings. I am satisfied the written deactivation warnings of 11 April, and 12 May 2025 constitute warnings. Further, these warnings specifying the reason (not meeting the minimum 85% satisfaction level) followed an earlier in-app message that the low satisfaction ratings require action to avoid risk of deactivation and provided various supports. The warnings containing the reason were clear, unambiguous and in plain English that was understood by the Applicant. All of this evidence was not contested.

• [24] Section 9 of the Code is not relevant.

• [25] The process for deactivation commenced because the Respondent, after giving a warning, considered on reasonable grounds that deactivation was justified because the reason for the warning continued.[17] Consistent with the requirements of section 11 of the Code, the Respondent gave the Applicant a preliminary deactivation notice. This notice specified the reason for the notice, that the Respondent was considering terminating access to the Platform, the Applicant had a right to respond and a right to request a discussion and that the Applicant may appoint a representative or support person. At the time of giving this notice the Respondent informed the Applicant of a suspension of access to the Platform to take effect immediately.[18] The steps in section 13 of the Code were met, noting that Mr Dar responded, that there was no discussion held as the Applicant did not request a discussion with a Platform representative and a human representative considered the response to the preliminary deactivation notice and the human representative reasonably decided that no further inquiries were required.

• [26] I am satisfied that the Respondent complied with section 14(1) and (2) of the Code because after giving a preliminary deactivation notice and having complied with section 13, it decided to terminate Mr Dar's access and as soon as reasonably practicable notified him in writing of its decision. Section 14(3) of the Code concerns decisions where the Platform Operator takes no further action, therefore this is not relevant to this matter.

• [27] Section 14(4)(a) of the Code must be read with section 14(4)(b) which requires the Commission to evaluate whether the operator has a valid reason which is a test of the quality of the reason, that being whether the reason was established by the operator to justify deactivation. The Code does not require the Commission to make a factual finding. The decision of Deputy President Saunders in Kumar[19] is particularly relevant at paragraph 8:

"...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". 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. 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." (references omitted)

• [28] In agreement, but expressed differently, Deputy President Colman in Mohamed[20] observed:

"I agree with the observations of Saunders DP in Kumar v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2275 at [8] that the requirement of a 'valid reason' in the context of s14(4)(a) of the Code tests the quality of the reason, not its proof. This is clear from the requirement of s.14(4)(b) that the operator consider 'on reasonable grounds' that the relevant reason has been established. In this regard, the expression 'valid reason' in s.14 of the Code differs from its cousin in s387 of the Act, which requires that the Commission be satisfied that the reason is both a good reason and one that is factually substantiated. Of course, what may constitute 'reasonable ground' will depend on all the circumstances, including the arguments and evidence presented to the operator by the worker about the facts that pertain to the reason in question."

• [29] I have considered the uncontested evidence regarding the reason to deactivate, and I am satisfied that the reason was valid as Mr Dar failed to meet the Platform minimum satisfaction level of 85%. I accept the evidence of Ms Fairlee that the minimum rating requirement was reasonable a reasonable and valid requirement based on the manner in which it is assessed and the reasons for the minimum averaging system. Therefore, having considered the circumstances of this matter in determining whether the reason is valid I am so satisfied. I am further satisfied that the Respondent considered on reasonable grounds that the reason had been established.[21]

• [30] Following consideration of Mr Dar's response and consistent with section 14 of the Code, the Respondent decided to terminate Mr Dar's access to the Platform and as soon as reasonably practicable informed him of the decision with sufficient information to enable a person in Mr Dar's position to understand.[22] The Code requires that a Digital Platform Provider uses reasonable endeavours to ensure that the process is carried out within a reasonable time frame and the employee-like worker is given a reasonable time to exercise their right of response under section 13 of the Code.[23] On the evidence I am so satisfied. In addition, I do consider that the requirement to meet a minimum rating is a matter constituting a valid reason as provided for in s.19(2) of the Code.

• [31] Where the Commission is satisfied that the Applicant's deactivation is consistent with the Code, no further consideration is necessary to determine whether the deactivation was unfair. The Respondent complied with the Code and the requirements of section 536LF had not been met. The Respondent addressed fairness and based on the evidence provided I am further satisfied that the deactivation was not unfair. As I am satisfied that the Applicant's deactivation is consistent with the Code, the application is dismissed.

E Fairlie with S Beer, lawyer_,_ for the Respondent.

[1] A copy of the deactivation notice is contained in Annexure M to witness statement of Emilee Fairlie dated 21 October 2025.

[4] Annexure G to witness statement of Emilee Fairlie dated 21 October 2025.

[5] Annexure H to witness statement of Emilee Fairlie dated 21 October 2025 and annexure B of the Applicant's witness statement dated 3 November 2025.

[6] Annexure I to witness statement of Emilee Fairlie dated 21 October 2025 and annexure B of the Applicant's witness statement dated 3 November 2025.

[7] This is evidenced by Annexure B of the Applicant's witness statement dated 3 November 2025.

[8] Annexure J to Witness statement of Emilee Fairlie dated 21 October 2025.

[9] Annexure A to the Applicant's witness statement of 3 November 2025 is a medical certificate dated 29 October 2025 which certifies that the Applicant had been suffering anxiety for the past 5 months, is in on medication, and is to be referred for further management.

[10] Annexure N to witness statement of Emilee Fairlie dated 21 October 2025.

[11] Annexure M to witness statement of Emilee Fairlie dated 21 October 2025.

[12] Respondent's outline of submissions at [29].

[13] Meaning in accordance with s.536LG of the Act.

[16] Whether the deactivation was unfair.

[19] Kumar v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2275.

[20] Mohamed v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2337 at [4].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer