Bhupinder Singh v Uber T/A Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 928

[2025] FWC 928

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Bhupinder Singh
v

Uber T/A Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd

(UDE2025/14)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL MELBOURNE, 8 APRIL 2025

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy – eligibility criteria not met – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative

1. Mr Bhupinder Singh applied for an unfair deactivation remedy under s.536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) on 28 February 2025.

1. Mr Singh stated in his application form that his deactivation from the Respondent’s digital labour platform took effect on 22 October 2022.

1. On 11 March 2025, the Commission contacted Mr Singh by telephone and Mr Singh confirmed that the dates he had provided in his application form were correct. Mr Singh was informed that applications for unfair deactivation are only available in relation to deactivations that take place from 26 February 2025,[1] and therefore his application appeared to be invalid. Mr Singh advised that he wanted to continue with his application despite not meeting the eligibility criteria.

1. On 25 March 2025, my Chambers emailed Mr Singh informing him that, based on the information that he had provided, he did not meet the eligibility criteria to make an application for an unfair deactivation remedy. The email directed Mr Singh to advise my Chambers of the date he was alleging his deactivation took effect and of any other reasons he had for why his application should not be dismissed under s.587(1)(c). That correspondence also warned Mr Singh that if he did not respond to the email by 1 April 2025, his application may be dismissed without further notice.

1. Mr Singh did not provide a response to the email of 25 March 2025 and, to date, has not made further contact with the Commission.

1. A person applying for an unfair deactivation remedy under the Act must have had their deactivation take place on or after 26 February 2025. The material before the Commission indicates that Mr Singh has not satisfied this requirement and, therefore, I am persuaded that his application has no reasonable prospects of success. As such, Mr Singh’s unfair deactivation remedy application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An order[2] to this effect will be issued with this decision.    

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] cl.124 of Schedule 1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

[2] PR785775.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR785772>