Bhupinder Singh v Uber T/A Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd

[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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bhupinder Singh applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair deactivation remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009, claiming his deactivation from Uber's digital platform on 22 October 2022 was unfair. The Commission informed him that his application was invalid as the deactivation occurred before the eligibility date of 26 February 2025. Despite being advised of this, Singh continued with his application. The Commission subsequently informed him that his application did not meet the eligibility criteria and warned that it could be dismissed if he did not respond by a specified date. Singh did not respond, and his application was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Act for lack of reasonable prospects of success.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Singh's application for an unfair deactivation remedy was eligible under the Act. The key consideration was whether the deactivation occurred on or after the specified date of 26 February 2025, as required by clause 124 of Schedule 1 of the Act. The Commission needed to determine if Singh's deactivation on 22 October 2022 met this criterion. Additionally, the Commission had to assess if Singh's failure to respond to correspondence about his ineligibility justified the dismissal of his application under section 587(1)(c).

The Commission found that Mr Singh's deactivation occurred before the eligibility date, making his application ineligible. Despite being informed of this, Singh did not provide any new information or reasons to justify his application. The Commission determined that, given the ineligibility and Singh's failure to respond to the warning, his application had no reasonable prospects of success. Consequently, the Commission dismissed Singh's application under section 587(1)(c) of the Act. An order to this effect will be issued with the decision.

The Commission ordered that Mr Singh's application for an unfair deactivation remedy be dismissed. This decision was based on the ineligibility of the application due to the date of deactivation and the lack of response to the notification of ineligibility. The dismissal was in accordance with section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission emphasised that Singh's application was invalid as it did not meet the statutory criteria, and his failure to engage with the Commission after being notified of the ineligibility further justified the dismissal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established