s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - objection that respondent complied with the Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code) Instrument 2024 - whether there was a valid reason for deactivation based on allegations of "street hailing or touting" - whether warning required - compliance with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code - application dismissed

• [1] On 21 June 2025 Mr Zeeshan Idrees filed an application pursuant to s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) seeking an unfair deactivation remedy. The application concerns Raiser Pacific Pty Ltd T/A Uber (Uber). Mr Idrees had a digital account operated by Uber in connection with his work as an Uber driver and performed work through or by means of that account. Mr Idrees was an "employee-like worker" for the purposes of section 15P of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) and Uber is a "digital labour platform operator" within the meaning of section 15M of the Act. Mr Idrees is a person protected from unfair deactivation[1].
• [2] Mr Idrees seeks from the Commission a remedy pursuant to s 536LQ of the Act which may include his reactivation and an order for lost pay. To obtain a remedy in respect of unfair deactivation, an employee-like worker such as Mr Idrees must have been unfairly deactivated which in turn requires it to be established that (a) he was deactivated, that (b) the deactivation was unfair and that (c) the deactivation was not consistent with the Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code) Instrument 2024 (the Code) in relation to the deactivation[2]. If one of these elements are not met, the Commission cannot make an order for a remedy in relation to the deactivation.
• [3] Uber say the deactivation of Mr Idrees's account was consistent with the Code and therefore his application should be dismissed.
• [4] I directed both parties to file and serve submissions in support of their respective positions in relation to this matter and conducted a hearing online via Microsoft Teams on 14 November 2025. Mr Idrees appeared for himself, assisted by an interpreter. Uber was granted permission to be represented by a lawyer pursuant to s 596 of the Act, Ms Leeds appeared for Uber.
• [5] At the hearing Mr Idrees affirmed the veracity of the factual assertions he had made in the material he has filed in this matter, supplemented those assertions with some short oral evidence in chief, and was subjected to cross examination. Ms Tierney, the Uber Industrial Relations Lead, gave evidence for Uber and Mr Idrees was afforded the opportunity to ask her questions.

• [6] Mr Idrees said he commenced performing work as an Uber Eats driver in March 2023 and a year later started working as an Uber driver. The deactivation of his account took effect on 17 September 2025.
• [7] The reason the account was deactivated was because Uber considered that in performing his delivery duties, Mr Idrees had engaged in what it describes as "street hailing or touting" on multiple occasions. Specifically, it considers that on at least two occasions, Mr Idrees picked up passengers and asked them to pay him directly, rather than through the Uber app. It says this is a breach of its "Community Guidelines". Mr Idrees denies engaging in this conduct.

• [8] The first allegation directed against Mr Idrees was said to have occurred on 16 February 2025. Uber has received a report from a customer about this allegation. The report was not solicited by Uber - it was made independently by the customer. In the report, the customer alleged that during a trip, Mr Idrees told him to cancel the trip and to pay him $85.00 for it on his own personal EFTPOS machine. Mr Idrees disputes this allegation. In his submissions made to the Commission, he said that the customer cancelled the ride during the trip, but Mr Idress completed the drop-off as a courtesy. Uber has recorded in its system that in a conversation with one of its personnel, Mr Idrees said about this incident that the customer "cheated on him and told him he was going to take a ride from him". In a written response provided to Uber, Mr Idrees said "he didn't know what happened". In oral evidence, Mr Idrees said that the customer was drunk. When asked why he did not mention this in his conversation with Uber about this incident or in his written response, Mr Idrees said he did not understand these interactions to be about the incident said to have occurred on 16 February 2025. I note however that Mr Idrees' written response to Uber refers to the "16/02/2025 incident".
• [9] Mr Idrees denied having charged this customer using his own personal EFTPOS machine or taking money from this customer.
• [10] Mr Idrees was sent a message from Uber about this incident which it described as a "warning". This message appears to have been sent to Mr Idrees via email and says that Uber had received a report that his vehicle was used to provide "rides outside the Uber driver app". It said that "rides can only be requires through the app, street hail and touting is not permitted" and that if that policy is ignored, a driver may be deactivated.

• [11] The second allegation directed against Mr Idrees is said to have occurred on 1 September 2025 at Melbourne Airport.
• [12] Mr Idrees' account of this incident, described in written submissions filed in the Commission, is that after having taken on-board a new customer, he politely told her that a PIN she supplied him with was not working, and asked that she rebook the ride so a new PIN could be generated, or wait for another car. He said the customer accused him of being a "scammer". Mr Idrees said he ended the trip immediately and dropped the customer back at the pickup location. He said he did not ask for or accept any payment from the customer.
• [13] In comments apparently made by Mr Idrees by way of explanation, Uber recorded that Mr Idress said that when the interaction with this customer occurred, the security guard at the airport required him to move his vehicle, which he did thus requiring him to depart with the customer on board, but when asked by the customer to return her to the drop-off point, he did so.
• [14] Uber received a report from this customer. The report was not solicited by Uber - it was made independently by the customer. In the report, the customer said she had a PIN to give Mr Idrees which he entered into the app but then said that it was not working. The customer said that Mr Idrees then started to drive and asked for her address and put it into Google maps. The customer said while Mr Idrees was driving, she asked him to enter the PIN again, and then suggested he close the app. She said that at this point she noticed that Mr Idrees had two Uber apps on his phone. She said Mr Idrees opened one of them, which was not responding. She asked why he had two apps, but he didn't reply. She reported that she asked Mr Idrees how she was supposed to pay him if the app was not working, and he said she could pay by card.
• [15] Mr Idrees has told Uber that this is not the first time he has experienced difficulty with the "PIN" system used at Melbourne Airport and described another incident on 27 August 2025 where he took delivery of a customer, where the PIN did not work but he dropped the customer at his home anyway.

• [16] After this incident, on 8 September 2025, Mr Idrees was sent a preliminary deactivation notice. The notice said that Mr Idrees had been notified of two incidents of reports of "street hailing / touting", on 16 February 2025 and 1 September 2025 and that consideration was being given to deactivating Mr Idrees' account. It also said that Mr Idrees' account was suspended. It said Mr Idrees could respond to the allegation in writing or by speaking to a member of Uber's community operations team.
• [17] Mr Idrees provided a written response on 10 September 2025 which said he did not "know what happened" in relation to the "16/02/2025 incident" and related the explanation outlined above in relation to the second incident. A conversation also occurred between a member of Uber's community operations team and his wife on 12 September 2025 in which Mr Idrees wife again related his explanation as to the incident on 1 September 2025.
• [18] Uber said a person from its community operations team reviewed Mr Idrees responses and determined that his account should be deactivated. It says consideration was given to, among other things, whether the complainants themselves were serial complainers or had made vexatious complaints in the past, and determined they had not. It also said consideration was given to the similarity in the reports made about Mr Idrees conduct and the detailed nature of the reports.
• [19] Mr Idrees was issued with a final deactivation notice on 17 September 2025.

• [20] Mr Idrees was aware of the Uber Community Guidelines. These state, explicitly, that "street hails and off-platform pickups" are prohibited, and that Uber drivers "should not requires trips from drivers [customers] outside of the Uber Marketplace Platform. It was clear to me that Mr Idrees understood this rule.
• [21] Some difficulty arose in exchange between Mr Idrees and Ms Tierney as to precisely what a person in his situation should do if there is a technical problem with payment through the app during a trip. Ms Tierney said that in circumstances such as when a PIN was not working, the driver should not terminate the ride in a safe manner. It strikes me that this may often be an entirely impractical solution. However, for the purposes of this matter it is clear that what the driver should not do is ask the customer to pay them directly. This is what Uber believes Mr Idrees did on at least two occasions.

• [22] In this matter, I must determine whether the decision to deactivate Mr Idrees's account was consistent with the Code, or not. I consider that the decision was consistent with the Code, on the basis of the following.

• [23] Section 8 of the Code requires a deactivation warning to be provided before deactivation. Section 9 of the Code provides that an exception to this rule exists if the operator considers on reasonable grounds that the matter relating to the worker's conduct or capacity is such that it warrants immediate modification or suspension of the worker's access to the digital labour platform or it is not reasonable to expect the operator to allow the worker to continue to perform work through or by means of the platform.
• [24] While originally claiming that a message sent to Mr Idrees in February 2025 (before the commencement of the operation of the Code) constituted a "warning" for the purposes of s 8 of the Code, Uber did not press this submission, and instead claims that it was not required to provide Mr Idees with a warning (and did not) because it considered Mr Idrees' conduct warranted immediate suspension of his access to its platform. This was an appropriate position for Uber to adopt, because it is clear the message sent to Mr Idrees in February 2025 does not comply with the requirements of s 8 of the Code, in terms of what a warning must contain.
• [25] Section 9 of the Code does not require the platform operator to determine whether the matter relating to the worker's conduct or capacity occurred or exists - rather - it requires an assessment of the nature of the matter on reasonable grounds to ascertain whether it is such that it warrants immediate modification or suspension of access to the platform, or is such that it is not reasonable to expect the operator to allow the worker to continue to perform work. In a sense, the matter must be assessed, on reasonable grounds, to be serious enough to warrant immediate modification, suspension or the discontinuation of permission to work. A process then ensues to determine whether there are reasonable grounds for a belief that the matter occurred.
• [26] The allegations levelled against Mr Idrees are serious. The system by which Uber customers engage an Uber vehicle to transport them to their destination and pay for that service through an app, through which the driver is paid, and Uber derives income, is the crux of the business model. The practice Uber describes as "street hailing or touting" fundamentally disrupts that model. It is reasonable to surmise that a worker who asks a customer to be paid directly is doing so for their personal benefit, at the expense of Uber (and possibly the customer). It is thus dishonest.
• [27] On this basis, I consider that the matter complained of in respect of Mr Idrees by the two customers was of a nature that, assessed on reasonable grounds warranted immediate suspension to the platform. The exception in s 9 of the Code applies.

• [28] Section 11 of the Code requires that the digital labour platform operator provide the employee-like worker with a preliminary deactivation notice specifying, among other things, the reason relating to the conduct or capacity of the worker that consideration is being given to terminating their access to the platform. The notice must contain several elements, including the reason, relating to the conduct or capacity of the worker for which the notice is given, that the operator is considering terminating the worker's access to the platform, that the worker has a right to respond to the notice and have a discussion with a representative of the operator.
• [29] Uber sent Mr Idrees a preliminary deactivation notice on 8 September 2025. I consider that each of the elements required by s 11 of the Code were contained within this notice and this part of the Code has been met.

Modification or suspension of access to platform

• [30] Section 12 of the Code provides that if an employee-like worker's access to the digital platform is suspended at the same time as the preliminary deactivation notice is given, the worker must be notified in writing as to the time and day from which the suspension takes effect and the consequences of the modification or suspension, and that this must be, in these circumstances, as part of the preliminary deactivation notice.
• [31] That is what occurred in this matter - these matters were noted in the preliminary deactivation notice sent to Mr Idrees 8 September 2025.

Discussion with a representative and consideration of response

• [32] Section 13(4) of the Code requires that the employee-like worker be able to make a request that a representative of the operator be made available to discuss the preliminary deactivation notice, and that if such a request is made, a person be made available withing a reasonable time.
• [33] I am satisfied Mr Idrees was afforded this opportunity and took it up, through his wife, who spoke to an Uber representative on 12 September 2025.
• [34] A human representative of the digital labour platform operator must consider the response provided by the employee-like worker (which may be in writing and also in a discussion with a representative). The digital labour platform operator must make such further inquiries (if any) as are reasonably warranted after considering the employee-like worker's response[3].
• [35] Uber provided documentary information from its system which showed to some extent the process engaged in by its community operations team to consider the responses from Mr Idrees (and his wife) and consider the customer complaints. This included the assessment made as to whether the customers were serial complainants (which they were not) and verification of photographic material provided by Mr Idrees and GPS data. Ms Tierney, while not the person who undertook this consideration, gave evidence explaining the process evident from the documentary information tendered. In these circumstances, I have no reason not to accept Uber's submission that Mr Idrees' response was considered by a human representative. I do not consider any further inquiries were reasonably warranted.

• [36] Section 14 of the Code requires that after complying with the preceding steps, the digital labour platform operator must decide whether to take no further action or terminate the worker's access to the digital labour platform. As soon as practicable, the worker must be notified of the decision. If there is a decision to terminate access, the worker must be given a final deactivation notice specifying several prescribed matters.
• [37] Mr Idrees was sent a final deactivation notice by Uber on 17 September 2025. The notice stated Uber had decided to terminate his access to its platform, for the reason specified in the preliminary deactivation notice. I consider the notice provided fulfills the requirements of s 14 of the Code.

Sufficient information to enable a reasonable person in the position of the employee-like worker to understand the communications

• [38] Both in respect to the requirement that a warning be given (s 8 of the Code), in relation to the preliminary deactivation notice (s 11 of the Code), and in relation to the final deactivation notice (s 14 of the Code) the information provided must be sufficient to enable a reasonable person in the position of the employee-like worker to understand the matters required to be contained within those communications.
• [39] I consider that the notices provided to Mr Idrees by Uber fulfilled these requirements: they were stated in plain English in a "question and answer" format. This appears to have led to Mr Idrees being able to engage with the preliminary deactivation notice, to which he submitted a written and verbal response attempting to address the nub of the concerns raised with him, suggesting there is no doubt he understood the matters raised in the communication.

Time frame, representation and communications

• [40] I consider that Uber used reasonable endeavours to ensure that the process concerning Mr Idrees's deactivation was carried out within a reasonable time frame, and Mr Idrees was given a reasonable time to exercise his right of response[4]. I also consider Mr Idrees was able to appoint a person to provide him with support or representation in relation to the deactivation process[5]. I also consider that communications with Mr Idrees relating to the deactivation were made in writing using an appropriate method - in particular the use of Mr Idrees's email address, which he obviously had access to[6].

• [41] Section 14(4) of the Code provides that a digital labour platform operator may terminate an employee-like worker's access to the digital labour platform only if the reason for the termination is a valid reason, and if the operator considers on reasonable grounds that the reason has been established. A valid reason is one which "sound, defensible or well-founded", and not "capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced"[7] and will involve something more than a minor failing or trivial misdemeanour and must be of sufficient gravity or seriousness to justify deactivation[8]. Determining compliance with the Code does not require the Commission to make a factual finding about whether or not alleged conduct occurred, but rather to assess whether the operator's belief as to the existence of a reason which is valid is supported by reasonable grounds[9].
• [42] Section 19 of the Code sets out examples of what may constitute a valid reason for the deactivation of an employee-like worker. These include failure to meet platform obligations, health and safety matters, the misuse of information, fraud, dishonesty or deliberate damage, a breach of law or regulatory requirements, licensing, accreditation and screening requirements and inactivity. In relation to the failure to meet platform obligations, s 19(2) of the Code says:

"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."

• [43] As I have observed above, I consider the conduct Uber believes Mr Idrees engaged in was serious and dishonest. I consider such conduct, if it occurs, to be a valid reason upon which to base a decision to deactivate a worker's access to the digital platform in question.
• [44] The two complaints Uber received about Mr Idrees' conduct provided it with a reasonable basis upon which to form a belief that the conduct occurred. In arriving at this conclusion, I have had regard to the separation in time between the first incident and the second incident, and the fact there were no other incidents reported in between. I have also considered Mr Idrees' explanation provided to Uber, that the incidents were as a result of technical problems which are not uncommon. I note Mr Idrees explanations in relation to the first incident lacked credibility, because they appeared to shift between an absence of recollection, to a recalcitrant customer, to the customer being drunk. Against Mr Idrees explanations are the similarity of the two complaints, and their specificity. It is difficult to imagine why two separate people would both complain, independently of one another about the same thing - that Mr Idrees attempted to solicit from them direct payment for the ride. Uber made appropriate inquiries to ascertain the veracity of these complaints. Despite Mr Idrees' explanations, they provided reasonable grounds to arrive at a belief that he engaged in the conduct - which I have described as dishonest - he is accused of.
• [45] It is not necessary for me to form a conclusion as to whether Mr Idrees was indeed engaging in what Uber describes as street hailing or touting, although, for the reasons set out above. I can understand why, on the evidence, it holds this suspicion.
• [46] I find that Uber's decision to terminate Mr Idrees's access to its platform was for a reason that was valid, and that it considered on reasonable grounds that the reason had been established.

• [47] Having considered each of the aspects of the Code relevant to this matter, on the evidence before me I consider the deactivation of Mr Idrees's digital account by Uber was consistent with the Code. He has therefore not been unfairly deactivated within the meaning of the Act, and his application is dismissed. An Order[10] will issue to that effect.

Mr Idrees appearing for himself assisted by an Interpreter

[1] Fair Work Act 2009 s 536LD; Respondent's Outline of Submissions, 13 August 2025, [3.7]

[2] Fair Work Act s 536LF

[3] Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code) Instrument 2024 ss 13(7) and (8)

[4] Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code) Instrument 2024 s 15

[5] Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code) Instrument 2024, s 16

[6] Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code) Instrument 2024, s 20(1)(b)

[7] Rahul Kumar v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2275 [8] (Kumar); Hasnain Ali v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3243 [11] (Hasnain)

[9] Kumar [8]; Hasnain [12]; Mohamed Mohamed v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2337 [4]

[10] PR793737

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer