Haris Ishfaq Summary | CaseChat AU

[2025] FWC 2530

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Haris Ishfaq

(UDE2025/167)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 28 AUGUST 2025

Application under s 536LU – six month requirement not met – application dismissed

Haris Ishfaq has made an application under s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) in which he contends that ‘Uber Eats’ unfairly deactivated him from the Uber Eats digital labour platform. He seeks an order for his reactivation under s 536LP. Portier Pacific Pty Ltd submits that it is the proper respondent to the application, because it is the entity that operates the Uber digital labour platform. I find that this is the case. Portier Pacific objects to the application on the ground that Mr Ishfaq was not a person ‘protected from unfair deactivation’ as defined in s 536LD, because he had not been performing work through or by means of the platform, or under a contract or contracts facilitated through the platform, for a period of at least 6 months. Portier Pacific submitted that Mr Ishfaq commenced working through its platform on 21 May 2025, and that it deactivated Mr Ishfaq’s account on 9 July 2025, such that Mr Ishfaq had worked on the platform for only one and a half months, well short of the six-month period required by s 536LD(c). Mr Ishfaq agreed that this was the case.

Section 536LD states:

A person is protected from unfair deactivation at a time if, at that time:

(a)the person is an employee - like worker; and

(b)the person:

(i)performs work through or by means of a digital labour platform operated by a digital labour platform operator; or

(ii)performs work under a services contract arranged or facilitated through or by means of a digital labour platform operated by a digital labour platform operator; and

(c)the person has been performing work through or by means of that digital labour platform, or under a contract, or a series of contracts, arranged or facilitated through or by means of the digital labour platform, on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months.

Mr Ishfaq was not a person protected from unfair deactivation because he had not been performing work through or by means of the Uber driver platform, or under a contract or contracts facilitated by the platform, for a period of at least 6 months. The requirement of s 536LD(c) is not met.

Mr Ishfaq’s application is therefore dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

A. Ayub for Mr Ishfaq
L. Tierney for Portier Pacific Pty Ltd

Hearing details:

2025
Melbourne (by telephone)
28 August

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Haris Ishfaq has applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 for an order to be reactivated on the Uber Eats platform. Portier Pacific Pty Ltd, the entity operating the Uber Eats platform, opposed the application on the ground that Mr Ishfaq had not worked on the platform for the required six-month period to qualify for protection from unfair deactivation. Mr Ishfaq accepted that he had only worked on the platform for less than two months, from 21 May 2025 until his deactivation on 9 July 2025.

The central issue before the Deputy President was whether Mr Ishfaq was protected from unfair deactivation under section 536LD. This section requires, among other things, that a person must have performed work through or by means of the digital labour platform on a regular basis for at least six months to qualify for protection. As Mr Ishfaq had not met this six-month requirement, the Deputy President found that he was not a person protected from unfair deactivation under the Act. As such, the application was dismissed. The Deputy President noted that the six-month period is a threshold requirement under the legislation and is not met in this case.

The Deputy President dismissed Mr Ishfaq's application on the basis that he did not satisfy the six-month requirement under section 536LD(c). The Deputy President found that Mr Ishfaq had worked on the platform for less than the required six months, and therefore was not protected from unfair deactivation. The application was dismissed.

Haris Ishfaq

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established