1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal Muhammad Mohsin Maqsood v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd t/as Uber (U2026/3376) COMMISSIONER MCKINNON SYDNEY, 23 APRIL 2026 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – whether dismissed – whether employee [1] On 26 February 2026, Mr Maqsood applied for an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act (Cth) (the Act) in relation to his alleged employment with Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber (Uber). Under s.394, a person who has been dismissed may apply to the Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy. Uber objects to the application because it says Mr Maqsood was not its employee and could not have been dismissed. [2] Mr Maqsood did not file any submissions or materials in response to the jurisdictional objection. At a hearing of the jurisdictional objection, Mr Maqsood accepted that he was not an employee of Uber. This is undoubtedly correct. Mr Maqsood was an employee-like worker covered by Part 3A-3 of the Act (Unfair deactivation or unfair termination of regulated workers) in relation to his work on the Uber platform. [3] This position has been known to Mr Maqsood since shortly after he filed his application, when he reviewed his service contract with Uber. He was also put on notice of the problem with his application on 11 March 2026, when Uber filed its response to the application. [4] On 25 March 2026, Directions were issued for a jurisdictional hearing on 22 April 2026 about the objection raised by Uber. The Directions required Uber to file its materials on or by 2 April 2026, and Mr Maqsood to file any response materials by 13 April 2026. [5] On 26 March 2026, Mr Maqsood asked to amend his application to one made under s.536LU (application for an unfair deactivation remedy). The application was made on the following basis: ‘I raised this concern in fair work as i have been removed from there platform .when i was applying in fair work i filed a case of unfair dismissal as i don’t know that i was not an employee because i have been paid through uber so I consider myself as uber employee can you pls tell me how can i change my case in unfair deactivation.’ [2026] FWC 1458 DECISION [2026] FWC 1458 2 [6] On 27 March 2026, Chambers responded to the request by advising that I could not provide Mr Maqsood with legal advice and providing links to information about where to get legal help and how to discontinue an application. The parties were advised that unless further advice was received from them, the directions and hearing on 22 April 2026 would remain. [7] Uber filed submissions and witness evidence in support of its jurisdictional objection on 2 April 2026. Approximately 30 minutes later, Mr Maqsood wrote to my Chambers: ‘ Hi hope you are doing well .i realised that i submit the form of unfair dismissal however i have to submit unfair deactivation can i change my case from unfair dismissal to unfair deactivation pls.’ [8] On 7 April 2026, Chambers responded by restating the information previously provided and seeking views about whether the jurisdictional issue should be determined on the papers. [9] Mr Maqsood did not respond to this correspondence and did not file any materials as directed by 13 April 2026. [10] On 17 April 2026, Mr Maqsood again wrote to Chambers to say: ‘Hi hope you are well.actually I’m not aware of how to respond .i want to file my case as unfair deactivation not unfair dismissal.im very anxious i have only one platform to earn and uber dismissed me i have nothing to earn pls guide me how i change my case from unfair dismissal to unfair deactivation.’ [11] On 20 April 2026, Chambers responded with advice that the hearing on 22 April 2026 would proceed as listed unless the application was discontinued, and providing links to information about unfair deactivation for employee-like workers, the Form F89 Unfair Deactivation application and the Form F50 Notice of Discontinuance. No further response was received from Mr Maqsood, and the matter proceeded to hearing on 22 April 2026. [12] There is no longer any dispute about whether Mr Maqsood was an employee. It is agreed that he was not employed by Uber. The question is whether the application can be amended to one made under s.536LU of the Act so that Mr Maqsood can apply for an unfair deactivation remedy. In my view, the answer is ‘No’. [13] In Ioannou v Northern Belting Services Pty Ltd,1 a Full Bench of the Commission expressed serious reservations about whether the power in s.586 to correct or amend an application could be relied upon to convert an unfair dismissal application into a general protections application. This was for reasons including that s.586 does not enable the Commission to ‘correct’ or ‘amend’ an application made under one type of statutory provision so that it becomes an application under a fundamentally different provision. These observations are apposite in relation to the difference between unfair dismissal applications and unfair deactivation applications, which are also applications made under fundamentally different provisions, despite some similarities in the processes to be adopted by the Commission. [14] In Hambridge v Spotless Facilities Services Pty Ltd,2 a separate Full Bench found that Ioannou was not applicable in circumstances where an application to amend one matter type to [2026] FWC 1458 3 another was based on mistake. In Hambridge, a general protections application was found in substance to be an unfair dismissal application, on the basis that the applicant intended to apply for an unfair dismissal remedy, he described his application in this way at the time of application to the Commission, and its contents were concerned with contentions of unfairness in the dismissal rather than any contravention of the general protections provisions. The Full Bench considered the application to be affected by a procedural error (use of the wrong form) capable of correction under s.586 of the Act. [15] In this case, application the form used by Mr Maqsood describes his deactivation and alleged non-compliance with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code and seeks reactivation to the Uber platform. This could be taken as being in substance an unfair deactivation application. The problem is that on Mr Maqsood’s own evidence, his intention was to apply for an unfair dismissal remedy because at the time, he considered himself to be an employee of Uber. In other words, it was a forensic choice rather than a procedural error. It was only after applying to the Commission that Mr Maqsood realised he was not an employee and that he should have applied for an unfair deactivation remedy instead. [16] In the circumstances, I cannot find this case to involve a simple procedural error such that s.586 would permit an amendment of the application to one made under s.536LU of the Act. Mr Maqsood intended to file the application that he did. The power in s.586 does not allow the conversion of an application made under one type of statutory provision to an application under a fundamentally different provision, including for purposes such as avoiding the 21-day filing period for such applications to be made. Order [17] The application is dismissed. COMMISSIONER Appearances: Mr Muhammad Mohsin Maqsood on his own behalf. Ms Nicole Juric of Dentons for the Respondent. Hearing details: Sydney (by video using Microsoft Teams): April 22. Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR798991> 1 [2014] FWCFB 6660; 245 IR 279, see also Hasan v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 726 2 [2017] FWCFB 2811