Fair Work Act 2009

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - deactivation complied with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code - application dismissed.

[1] Mr Zain Anwar (Applicant) has applied to the Fair Work Commission under s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 for an unfair deactivation remedy. Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (Respondent or Uber) 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 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 6 January 2026. The Applicant gave evidence on his own behalf and Ms Laura Tierney (Industrial Relations Lead) gave evidence for the Respondent. The Respondent was granted permission pursuant to s 596(2) of the Act to be represented by Mr S Beer of Dentons Australia.

[5] For the reasons that follow, I find that the deactivation was consistent with the Code and was therefore not unfair.

[6] The Applicant most recently accepted the terms of the Services Agreement with Uber on 27 October 2024, confirming that he had read and would comply with the Respondent's Community Guidelines.

[7] The Community Guidelines relevantly provide that a failure to follow the Guidelines could result in the loss of access to part or all of the Uber Driver Platform.

[8] The Applicant was given four notices that he was at risk of deactivation. These warnings were given on 5 June 2021 (First Warning), 12 May 2025 (Second Warning), 16 July 2025 (Third Warning) and 14 September 2025 (Fourth Warning).

[9] Each of the warnings was given in response to complaints by Riders about the conduct of the Applicant.

[10] It was the four complaints, which are set out below, that led to the Applicant's deactivation.

[11] The Respondent received a complaint about the Applicant in the following terms:

"Driver was arguable and aggressive at end of trip and accused myself and passenger for 'slamming doors' when no events as such occurred. Driver also threatened with a low rating and cancellation of Uber. Both myself and passenger of whom witnessed are unhappy and uncomfortable with the service provided."

[12] The Respondent provided details of the first complaint in writing to the Applicant the same day and reminded him about complying with the Community Guidelines.

[13] The Applicant responded in writing saying that the Rider abused him and slammed the car door, and that the female passenger hit him with her umbrella before getting out of the car.

[14] The second complaint was in the following terms:

"The driver got quite aggressive towards us and we feared for our safety, so he didn't end up taking us to our requested destination but I was charged the full fare...in any case we just wanted to get out because of the way he was acting. No racist comments by us, as he accused".

[15] The Respondent provided details of the complaint to the Applicant in writing the same day and noted that "serious or repeated claims of verbal altercation of any kind may result in the removal of your access to the driver app".

[16] The Applicant's response was that the passenger was intoxicated and was using offensive language.

"When I booked for uber it says 1 minute away. He was sitting where he was parking for 5 minutes. When I messaged him he said he has arrived but he was not. Then a minute later he came to me and he said you book the new uber I'm not taking you and fuckn have patients next time he said. His behaviour was angry, aggressive. I don't believe he would treat customers that way."

[18] On 16 July 2025 the Applicant was informed of the complaint and was also advised that verbal altercations could result in his removal from the app.

[19] The Applicant's response to the third complaint was that the "ride lasted under 4 minutes, and the vehicle cabin was already warm from continuous trips that night. His complaints about the temperature were unfounded. When I ended the trip due to discomfort and requested he exit the vehicle, he refused multiple times and only left after a firm warning".

[20] The Respondent's data did not support the Applicant's contention. Rather, it showed that the trip was cancelled before the Applicant picked up the rider. The Respondent provided the communication log between the Applicant and the rider, which makes clear that the Applicant told the rider to "get another uber" before the trip commenced.

[21] The fourth complaint was received on 13 September 2025 in the following terms:

"The driver seemed to be going through an emotional/psychotic break. He was talking about conspiracy theories about how he has a stalker and all of his technology and phone are bugged. He asked his chat gpt to tell us his employment history and the reasons he was fired from his last jobs in extreme detail. Chat gpt also told us about how his house has been broken into multiple times and how he had been sent to the psych ward when he went to the police about the alleged stalking and home break in. He called us pretty girls and we felt unsafe as we are two 21 year old women. This driver should not be driving and needs serious psychological help. I have a voice memo as evidence of part of the conversation. I have supporting information to submit to Uber as a part of this incident (e.g. photos, audio, video or documents to share): true."

[22] When the Respondent notified the Applicant of this complaint, it told him that "a rider has provided feedback that you may have made suggestive comments about a user's physical appearance on a recent trip on Sept 12, which is a breach of Uber's community guidelines ... anyone who accesses the uber app is required to follow our community guidelines ...".

[23] After receipt of the Fourth Complaint, the Respondent issued the Applicant with a preliminary deactivation notice on 13 September 2025. The preliminary deactivation notice was in the following terms:

"You're receiving this message because a review of your account found that you have previously been reported for multiple instances of sexual misconduct - comment about appearance, which is a direct violation of your agreement with Uber and we are considering terminating your access to be Uber Driver app.

Please note that when we were made aware of these previous reports, we also made sure to notify you, these were sent on the following dates:

1. On No outbound we notified you that we received a report that you may have made inappropriate comment on appearance during a trip on 11 September 2025.
2. On 16 July 2025 we notified you that we received a report that you may have aggressive behaviour during a trip on 14 July 2025.
3. On 12 May 2025 we notified you that we received a report that you may have aggressive behaviour during a trip on 09 May 2025.
4. On 5 June 2021 we notified you that we received a report that you may have aggressive behaviour during a trip on 4 June 2021.
5. You should be able to find these in the Messages section of the Uber Driver app. You may also find other safety related notifications we have sent you in the past.

Reports of behaviour of this nature are extremely concerning and are in violation of our Uber Community Guidelines, 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 13 September 2025. Suspension of your access means that you will be unable to accept or complete trips/deliveries during the suspension period.

Respond to this Notice: 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.

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

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

Please note that any information provided will be subject to our Privacy Notice.

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." [Hyperlinks removed]

[24] The Applicant responded on 13 and 14 September 2025 and also requested a call with a representative of the Respondent which occurred on 15 September 2025.

[25] In his response, the Applicant provided around 82 documents including a document titled "The Anatomy of a Systemic Attack: A Forensic Analysis and Accountability Report on the Digital and Institutional Persecution of Zain Anwar", and an email addressed to Senator Faruqi with the subject "Grave Escalation of Digital Tampering, Covert Surveillance, and Denial of Due Process - Immediate Intervention Required".

[26] In his discussion with the Respondent's representative, which was recorded and transcribed, the Applicant stated that:

"I tried to seek the help from the Legal Aid. Legal Aid is a department which they need to give you a legal advice and the day I went there for the legal advice, the lawyer told me, we got a call from the Australian Federal Police that Zain is coming today, but don't believe him, he's crazy. He, the lawyer said, can you please get a medical certificate that you are fine? I got the medical certificate and we actually clearly stated I'm fine. I'm not crazy or anything like that. So the thing is, when the door's going to be making shut on you by your own officials, by your own country's own departments, I got, you know what, I got, I lost my job on the 29th of the June. I hired as a full-time employee and you know why I lost my job? Because they wanted to get me homeless ..."

[27] A final deactivation notice was issued on 21 September 2025 in the following terms:

"Your response has been reviewed and your account has been deactivated

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."

[28] Most of the Applicant's extensive evidence dealt with allegations that the Respondent had manipulated its records as they related to him, and that he had discovered "patterns of financial manipulation" by Uber. The Applicant also gave evidence that the trips offered to him changed after he declared in 2025 that he was non-binary.

[29] I have not set out the basis for the allegations of financial irregularities as it has no relevance to whether the Applicant's deactivation was consistent with the Code.

[30] 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.

[31] I am satisfied that the Respondent complied with section 8 of the Code because it gave the Applicant deactivation warnings as outlined above.

[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 13 September 2025 which set out the reason the notice was given, that the Respondent was considering deactivating the Applicant, and giving him an opportunity to respond within 7 days. 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 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.

[34] 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.

[35] In terms of a valid reason (section 14(4) of the Code), I am satisfied that the Applicant failed to meet the Respondent's standards in relation to quality, service level or performance, and that he breached the Respondent's code of conduct. Finally, given the seriousness of the Fourth Complaint, the deactivation was necessary to protect the health and safety of Riders.

[36] Accordingly, I find there was a valid reason as contemplated by section 19(2) of the Code.

[37] If I am wrong that the deactivation was consistent with the Code, I would have found that the deactivation was not unfair because the complaints, and in particular the Fourth Complaint, would constitute a valid reason for the deactivation, and the deactivation was otherwise procedurally fair.

[38] I am satisfied that the Respondent complied with the Code and so the application is dismissed.

S Beer of Dentons Australia for Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer