iscover
In a landmark Fair Work Commission ruling, Uber was found to have unfairly deactivated a driver after receiving unfounded allegations that he threatened three riders with a baseball bat.
South Australian Uber driver Mohammad Shareed Hotak won his Fair Work case against the ride-sharing company, marking the first time an order was made to restore lost pay in cases of unfair deactivation.
Following an unblemished four and a half years on the platform, Hotak was deactivated in early April over complaints he threatened a rider and his two guests with a baseball bat just weeks earlier.
Hotak, represented by Transport Workers Union (TWU), denied possession of any weapon and alleged he was the one who had been assaulted after telling the riders to stop using drugs in the car.
He immediately called Triple Zero and reported the alleged incident.
In their decision, deputy president Tony Saunders, deputy president Kamal Farouque, and commissioner Emma Thornton said there was no reason to doubt the reliability of Hotak’s evidence.
“It follows that we are satisfied that there was not a valid reason for Hotak’s deactivation related to his capacity or conduct and his deactivation did not occur because of any serious misconduct on his part,” Saunders, Farouque, and Thornton determined.
Uber voluntarily reactivated Hotak’s account in mid-May and said there was no longer any remedy available.
Hotak denied this and sought the reactivation order, along with conditions that his performance of work be continuous from the deactivation date, and his current engagement on the platform be on the same terms and conditions as he had prior to the incident.
The Commission accepted the reactivation and both requirements.
“Absent the inclusion of this requirement in our reactivation order, Uber could deactivate Hotak shortly after he was reactivated in accordance with our order, at a time when he would not yet have reacquired the statutory protection,” the bench said.
A requirement that Uber remove the negative review from the incident was not accepted by the Commission due to a lack of power.
While the Fair Work Commission cannot make compensation orders in unfair deactivation cases, it can make one for lost pay. The parties have a few weeks to confer on the amount.
“Hotak had performed work to a consistently high standard over a reasonably lengthy period. There was no valid reason for the deactivation, and its impact on [the driver] has been significant, both personally and economically,” Saunders, Farouque, and Thornton said.
In a statement, Hotak sympathised with other drivers who have been allegedly unfairly deactivated or are facing deactivation.
“I know how stressful and frightening it feels when your income is suddenly cut off. But we have rights,” Hotak said.
“Reach out to your union, speak up and don’t be afraid to challenge Uber’s unfairness. Together we are stronger, and we can fight and win our dignity back.”
TWU secretary Michael Kaine said the decision was a “blow” to Uber’s business model of deactivating workers “with no evidence and no regard for the impact it will have on their lives”.
Sally McManus, secretary for the Australian Council of Trade Unions, added the case was a “watershed moment” for gig economy workers.
“For too long, the livelihoods of workers and their families were devastated by unfair deactivation by powerful multinational companies like Uber,” McManus said.
“The Fair Work Commission’s ruling makes clear that gig workers now have enforceable rights, and that companies must respect them or be held to account.”
The case: Application by Mohammad Shareef Hotak - [2025] FWCFB 214.
RELATED TERMS
When a company terminates an employee's job for improper or illegitimate reasons, it is known as an unfair dismissal.
