1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy Muhammad Awais v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (UDE2026/153) DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON MELBOURNE, 20 APRIL 2026 Application for an unfair deactivation remedy – application dismissed. [1] Mr Muhammad Awais (Applicant) made an application on 23 March 2026 under s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), alleging that he was unfairly deactivated by Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber. On 1 April 2026 the Respondent filed its Form F89A response in which it raised the following jurisdictional objections: The application was made outside the 21-day filing period, the Applicant had not worked through or by means of a digital platform for a period of at least 6 months, and the Applicant was not a person protected from unfair deactivation under Part 3A-3 of the Act. [2] The matter was allocated to my Chambers on 26 March 2026 for determination. The Applicant identified in his Form F89 application that the date of his deactivation was 7 December 2024. He confirmed that deactivation date during a Mention held on 15 April 2025. Following the Mention, correspondence was sent to the Applicant in the following terms; “Mr Awais As discussed in the Mention this morning, the Deputy President is considering the dismissal of your application for an unfair deactivation remedy on the following basis. Your F89A application form indicates that the deactivation of your Uber account took place on 7 December 2024. In response to a question from the Deputy President, you confirmed that deactivation date during the Mention. Section 536LD of the Fair Work Act 2009 confers jurisdiction on the Commission to deal with an application for an unfair deactivation remedy only where the person is ‘protected from unfair deactivation’. One of the qualifying criteria is that the “person has been performing work through or by means of that digital platform……,on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months” (s 536LD(c)). In calculating the 6-month period, it is only work performed after 26 August 2024 that is counted. That is because of Clause 124 of Part 18 of Schedule 1 to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024) which relevantly states as follows; [2026] FWC 1404 DECISION [2026] FWC 1404 2 124 Unfair deactivation and unfair termination (1) Part 3A - 3 (unfair deactivation or unfair termination of regulated workers) applies to a deactivation or termination that occurs after commencement. (2) For the purposes of determining under paragraph 536LD(c) whether an employee - like worker has been performing work for a period of at least 6 months, a period or periods before commencement are not to be counted. The unfair deactivation provisions commenced on 26 August 2024. This means that at the date of your deactivation on 7 December 2024, you did not meet the 6-month requirement. As such, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with your application. Should you object to dismissal of your application for the reasons set out above, you may file submissions and any other material you seek to rely on or by 5.00pm Friday 17 April 2026.” [3] The Applicant failed to file any submissions or material in response to the above correspondence. As such, I will proceed to determine the matter on the material currently before me. [4] Section 536LU(1) permits a person who has been deactivated to apply to the Commission, for an order under Division 4 granting a remedy. In dealing with an application, s 536LW identifies preliminary matters that must be considered by the Commission. They are as follows; “The FWC must decide the following matters relating to an application for an order under Division 4 before considering the merits of the application: (a) whether the application was made within the period required in subsection 536LU(3); (b) whether the person was protected from unfair deactivation or unfair termination, as the case requires; (c) whether the deactivation or termination was consistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code or the Road Transport Industry Termination Code, as the case requires.” [5] Section 536LD defines when a person is protected from unfair deactivation as follows; “536LD When a person is protected from unfair deactivation A person is protected from unfair deactivation at a time if, at that time: (a) the person is an employee-like worker; and [2026] FWC 1404 3 (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.” [6] Item 124 of Schedule 1 to the Act relevantly states that; “(1) Part 3A-3 Unfair deactivation or unfair termination of regulated workers applies to a deactivation or termination that occurs after commencement. (2) For the purposes of determining under paragraph 536LD(c) whether an employee - like worker has been performing work for a period of at least 6 months, a period or periods before commencement are not to be counted.” [7] Part 3A-3 was included in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 (Cth) and commenced operation on 26 August 2024. [8] It follows from the above that as the deactivation of the Applicant took place on 7 December 2024, it is only the period between 26 August 2024 and his deactivation on 7 December 2024 that is to be taken into account for the purposes of meeting the 6-month work requirement specified in s 536LD(c) of the Act. Accepting for present purposes that the Applicant performed work on a regular basis between those two dates, he fails to meet the minimum 6-month requirement. It follows that the Applicant is not a person protected from unfair deactivation. His application must therefore be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Conclusion [9] For the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied that the Applicant is not a person protected from unfair deactivation. His application must be consequently dismissed. An order to that effect will be issued with this decision. DEPUTY PRESIDENT [2026] FWC 1404 4 On the papers Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR798862>