Gig workers and road transport contractors can now challenge their unfair deactivation or termination through the Fair Work Commission. New laws introduced in February 2025 give the likes of Uber drivers and DoorDash couriers the ability to get reactivated or receive compensation. Road transport contractors can also have their contract renewed or receive compensation.
In this article, we provide an easy-to-read explanation of who can apply for an unfair deactivation or termination claim and the eligibility requirements. We outline the process involved, how the Fair Work Commission arbitrates claims and the possible remedies you can be awarded.
We also provide an example of a recent unfair deactivation case involving an Uber driver who successfully argued that he was eligible to make a claim.
The unfair deactivation or termination protections apply to regulated workers. The Fair Work Commission defines a regulated worker as someone who performs work under a services contract. Under the law, regulated workers are not considered employees, but instead as contractors.
The Commission outlines that there are two kinds of regulated workers who are eligible to make an unfair deactivation or termination claim:
These are individuals who carry out their work through a digital labour platform. For instance, through apps like DoorDash, Uber or Menulog. These individuals could also work under a services contract that is arranged or managed via a digital labour platform.
According to the Fair Work Commission, employee-like workers must exhibit two of the following qualities:
Employee-like workers are eligible to make an unfair deactivation claim with the Fair Work Commission if they have been deactivated from their digital labour platform.
These are individuals working within the road transport industry who undertake work under a services contract. Regulated road transport contractors are eligible to make an unfair termination claim with the Fair Work Commission if their services contract has been terminated.
Regulated workers must lodge their unfair deactivation or termination claim within 21 days of the date of their deactivation or termination. This deadline can only be extended in exceptional circumstances.
Your deactivation or termination must have occurred on or after 26 February 2025. A claim can be lodged if you worked regularly for a period of six months. Your annual earnings must also be less than the contractor high income threshold. The threshold for the year beginning 1 July 2025 is $183,100.
Let’s look at the requirements for the two types of workers:
A deactivation occurs when the company you perform work for changes, suspends or terminates your access to the digital labour platform, resulting in an inability to use the platform anymore.
A termination occurs when a road transport business terminates your services contract.
If you need guidance on how to lodge a claim with the Fair Work Commission, and for help to get the best outcome, give our team a call today on 1800 333 666. We offer a no win, no fee service across Australia, and your first consultation with us is free and confidential.
Here are the steps involved once you lodge your unfair deactivation or termination claim with the Commission:
If your claim proceeds to a formal hearing, the Fair Work Commission will answer several questions to determine if you experienced an unfair deactivation or termination. These include:
The Commission may also consider other factors that it feels are relevant.
The Fair Work Commission will deem a deactivation or termination as not unfair if it is proven that it took place due to serious misconduct. In addition, a deactivation or suspension of access to a digital labour platform is not deemed unfair if it lasted for seven business days or less, and the Commission is satisfied that the digital labour platform operator had reasonable grounds to believe that:
If your claim is successful, the Fair Work Commission can order a remedy. This differs for both sets of workers:
The Commission can order the company you provided services for to reactivate you on their digital labour platform. It may also order the company to pay you compensation to cover any losses you incurred due to your deactivation.
The Commission can order the company you provided services for to engage you with a new services contract. This contract must have the same terms or the Commission may order that they be updated.
A new services contract could be deemed as not appropriate in instances where, for example, the relationship between you and the company has deteriorated. In that case, the Commission can order the company to pay you compensation.
In July 2025, the Fair Work Commission assessed whether an Uber delivery driver was eligible to make an unfair deactivation claim. This was detailed in the case Mian Abu Bakar v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025]. This case provides a good idea of how the unfair deactivation claim process works and how the Commission examines eligibility.
The Newcastle, NSW based applicant, Mian Abu Bakar, was a delivery driver who had been deactivated by Uber in May 2025. He had started performing Uber Eats delivery work in approximately July 2023. Until March 2025, Mr. Bakar worked under a services agreement with Portier Pacific Pty Ltd – an Australian delivery services provider for Uber.
He then entered into a separate services agreement with Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd – another Australian delivery services provider. From March 2025 to May 2025, Mr. Bakar exclusively performed work as an Uber Driver Partner, with payments processed by Rasier Pacific.
After Mr. Bakar lodged an unfair deactivation claim with the Fair Work Commission, Rasier Pacific responded with a jurisdictional objection. It argued that Mr. Bakar had not been performing regular work through a digital labour platform for a continuous period of at least six months. The company therefore contended that he was not protected from unfair deactivation.
Rasier Pacific cited Mr. Bakar’s separate contracts with different entities (Portier and Rasier Pacific) for different types of work (Uber Eats and Uber Driver Partner). The company argued that this meant the requirements of regular, continuous work for six months had not been met.
In July 2025, the Fair Work Commission held a telephone hearing to discuss Rasier Pacific’s jurisdictional objection. An Uber Australia representative presented evidence to support the objection, while Mr. Bakar provided evidence opposing it.
The Commission examined the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 with respect to the jurisdictional objection. Specifically, it examined the requirement for the individual to have regularly performed work for a continuous period of at least six months.
The Commission cited the findings of a previous unfair deactivation case. In that case, it was found that the Fair Work Act 2009 requires a single, continuous period of work immediately preceding deactivation, rather than cumulative or earlier periods.
The Fair Work Commission noted that the phrase “performing work on a regular basis” is not explicitly defined in the Fair Work Act. However, it accepted that case law suggests it implies a “repetitive pattern.” It was found that this could be demonstrated through consistent, even if not daily, engagement. Sporadic or ad hoc work would not be considered regular.
The Commission examined the requirements of the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. This states that regular work is defined as completing “on average” 60 hours of paid work each month or paid work on three days of each week through a digital labour platform.
On 1 July 2025, Rasier Pacific attempted to withdraw its jurisdictional objection. This was just before the decision was to be published. However, the Fair Work Commission decided to publish the decision.
The Commission rejected Rasier Pacific’s argument that Mr. Bakar’s separate contracts with different entities for different types of work made him ineligible to make a claim. It said that the Fair Work Act 2009 “does not differentiate” between different types of work. It also does not differentiate between different legal entities through which such work may be performed. The Commission noted that the key consideration was the performance of work “through or by means of a digital labour platform.”
The Fair Work Commission found that Mr. Bakar had performed work through the Uber App continuously from July 2023 until his deactivation on 2 May 2025. Crucially, it concluded that the work performed by Mr. Bakar through the Uber App in the six-month period immediately preceding his deactivation was performed on a regular basis. This regularity was evident as the work was performed “multiple times almost every week during that period,” regardless of whether it was for Portier or Rasier Pacific.
The Commission was therefore satisfied that Mr. Bakar was a person protected from unfair deactivation. His unfair deactivation claim was allowed to proceed to another telephone hearing.
Our team at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives are Australia’s leading workplace mediators – feared by employers and known for the results we get for workers. We can help you make a Fair Work Claim if you are a gig worker that’s been unfairly deactivated, or a road transport contractor that has been unfairly terminated.
Contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free and private consultation.
