Uber case explores eligibility requirements for workers switching services
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently addressed an eligibility question under Australia's new gig economy deactivation laws, finding that an Uber driver who performed both food delivery and rideshare services was protected from unfair deactivation despite working different roles under separate contracts.
The case arose when the worker was deactivated from the Uber platform in May 2025 after nearly two years of continuous work, with Rasier Pacific initially arguing he lacked sufficient tenure due to switching between service types.
The worker argued he met the six-month regular work requirement through continuous platform engagement spanning both Uber Eats delivery and Uber Driver Partner services.
Rasier Pacific contested this interpretation, claiming separate contracts for different work types broke the continuity requirement, but withdrew their objection before the decision was published.
New digital platform protections create eligibility questions
Since February 2025, employee-like workers can lodge unfair deactivation claims if they believe they have been unfairly removed from digital labour platforms like Uber, DoorDash, and similar apps.
The legislation requires workers to demonstrate they performed work through a digital platform on a regular basis for at least six months to qualify for protection.
The worker commenced Uber Eats delivery work in July 2023 under a services agreement with Portier Pacific, performing regular food deliveries through the Uber app.
In March 2025, he transitioned to passenger transport work as an Uber Driver Partner under a separate agreement with Rasier Pacific, continuing until his deactivation in May 2025.
This transition created the central legal question: whether switching between different service types offered through the same platform reset the worker's eligibility period or whether continuous platform engagement satisfied the six-month requirement regardless of specific job categories.
FWC applies platform-focused interpretation
The Deputy President found that the Fair Work Act does not differentiate between different types of work or different legal entities when assessing platform continuity.
The test focuses on work performed through or by means of a digital labour platform rather than requiring consistency in specific job roles or contractual arrangements.
The Commission determined that the worker performed regularly through the Uber app from July 2023 until his deactivation in May 2025, with no dispute that work was being performed multiple times almost every week throughout this period.
The transition between food delivery and passenger transport services did not break the continuity of his platform engagement.
This interpretation supports the legislation's objective of protecting sustained platform workers while acknowledging the flexible nature of modern gig economy arrangements, where workers may transition between different services offered through the same digital platform.
Regular work standard established for platform engagement
The decision clarifies that regular work on a regular basis implies repetitive patterns rather than requiring uniform schedules or specific frequencies.
Workers performing tasks multiple times almost every week clearly satisfy the requirement, even with occasional breaks or varying schedules between different service types.
The Commission referenced the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code, which provides safe harbor standards, including 60 hours of paid work monthly or working three days per week on average.
However, these standards are not exhaustive, and workers can demonstrate regularity through other consistent engagement patterns.
The worker's evidence of continuous platform engagement throughout the relevant six-month period preceding his deactivation met the threshold for protection, regardless of transitioning between different work types offered through the same digital infrastructure.
Practical consequences for HR and digital platforms
The decision establishes that digital labour platforms should recognize that workers performing different roles or working for multiple entities within the platform ecosystem may still qualify for unfair deactivation protection.
This interpretation prioritizes platform continuity over technical distinctions about specific job categories or separate contractual arrangements.
For HR professionals managing platform relationships, the ruling clarifies that maintaining regular engagement with a digital platform can preserve eligibility for protection even when transitioning between different services offered through that platform.
The key requirement is demonstrating sustained platform commitment rather than consistency in particular job roles.
https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/gig-economy-protection-laws-tested-by-worker-with-multiple-platform-roles/550832
