Tashi Namdak v Uber Trading as Raiser Pacific Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 2242

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Tashi Namdak

Uber Trading AS Raiser Pacific Pty Ltd

(UDE2025/146)

COMMISSIONER HARPER-GREENWELL

MELBOURNE, 1 AUGUST 2025

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Tashi Namdak (Applicant) applied for an unfair deactivation remedy under s.536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) on 3 July 2025. The Applicant stated in their application form that their deactivation from the Respondent’s digital labour platform took effect on 10 December 2024.

On 9 July 2025, the Commission contacted the Applicant by telephone and the Applicant confirmed that the dates they had provided in their application form were correct.

On 25 July 2025, my Chambers emailed the Applicant informing them that, based on the information that they had provided, they did not meet the eligibility criteria to make an application for an unfair deactivation remedy. The email directed the Applicant to advise my Chambers of the date they were alleging their deactivation took effect and of any other reasons they had for why their application should not be dismissed under s.587(1)(c). That correspondence also informed the Applicant that if they did not respond to the email by 30 July 2025, their application may be dismissed without further notice.

The Applicant did not provide a response to the email of 25 July 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[1].The material before the Commission indicates that Tashi Namdak has not satisfied this requirement and, therefore, I have formed the view that their application has no reasonable prospects of success. As such, Tashi Namdak’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.

COMMISSIONER

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

[2] PR790257.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

< PR790256>

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Tashi Namdak versus Uber Trading as Raiser Pacific Pty Ltd, the applicant, Tashi Namdak, sought an unfair deactivation remedy under section 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The applicant claimed that their deactivation from the respondent's digital labour platform occurred on 10 December 2024. The case was heard by Commissioner Harper-Greenwell of the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issue for the court was whether the applicant's deactivation occurred on or after 26 February 2025, a requirement under the Act for eligibility to seek an unfair deactivation remedy. Given the information provided by the applicant, the court had to determine if the applicant met the eligibility criteria and if their application had reasonable prospects of success.

The court found that the applicant's deactivation did not occur on or after the specified date, and thus, the application did not meet the eligibility criteria. As the applicant did not respond to correspondence requesting further information, the court determined that the application had no reasonable prospects of success. Consequently, the application for an unfair deactivation remedy was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Act. An order to this effect will be issued alongside the decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established