Kanwarpal Singh Nanday v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 1576

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Kanwarpal Singh Nanday
v

Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd

(UDE2025/66)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 6 JUNE 2025

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - application dismissed

Mr Nanday has made an unfair deactivation application against Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber.

A person must be protected from unfair deactivation in order to be able to obtain a remedy for unfair deactivation. One of the requirements a person must meet to be protected from unfair deactivation is that they have been performing work on a digital labour platform on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months (s 536LD(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)).

There is no dispute that Mr Nanday performed some work for Uber for a few months in 2017 and started performing work for Uber again on 3 March 2025. Mr Nanday continued performing work for Uber from 3 March 2025 until he was deactivated on 2 April 2025.

Mr Nanday is not protected from unfair deactivation because, at the time of his deactivation, he had not performed work for Uber on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months. It follows that Mr Nanday’s unfair deactivation application must be dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by Kanwarpal Singh Nanday against Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd, trading as Uber, for an unfair deactivation remedy. Nanday sought redress for his deactivation from the Uber platform. The central issue was whether Nanday was protected from unfair deactivation under section 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if Nanday met the requirement of performing work on a digital labour platform on a regular basis for at least six months, a condition precedent to being eligible for such a remedy.

The court examined Nanday's work history with Uber. It found that Nanday had performed work for Uber in 2017 but had a gap before resuming work on 3 March 2025. Although he continued working until his deactivation on 2 April 2025, the period from March to April did not exceed six months. Consequently, the Commission concluded that Nanday had not met the statutory requirement for protection from unfair deactivation. As a result, the application for an unfair deactivation remedy was dismissed.

In reaching its decision, the Commission noted the statutory language and its plain meaning. It emphasised that the requirement for a six-month period of regular work was non-negotiable and must be strictly adhered to for an applicant to be protected under the Act. Given that Nanday did not fulfil this criterion, the Commission had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. The Deputy President Saunders, who presided over the case, upheld this interpretation of the law, leading to the dismissal of the application.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application for an unfair deactivation remedy be dismissed, and no further action would be taken under section 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009. The decision underscores the necessity for individuals to meet specific statutory criteria to be eligible for certain labour protections under Australian employment law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established