Pizza delivery driver replaced by Uber Eats wins compensation

A pizza delivery driver who was made redundant after his employer opted for Uber Eats over its own delivery service won compensation over a lack of procedural fairness in his dismissal.

After working for Pizza Hut’s North Sydney branch for about 1.35 years, delivery driver Sergey Slabko was fired after the company decided to use Uber Eats instead of operating its own in-house delivery service.

Following his dismissal, Slabko made efforts to mitigate his losses, applying for numerous jobs without success.

In a 13 February 2026 decision, Fair Work Commission deputy president Tony Saunders ordered the operator of a Pizza Hut store in North Sydney to pay Slabko $1,008 in compensation after it failed to comply with consultation obligations before Slabko was made redundant on 22 July 2025.

Slabko commenced employment with Pizza Hut North Sydney operator, Seck Enterprises, on 7 March 2024. He initially worked at least 25 hours a week, delivering pizza for the restaurant.

After about two weeks, Slabko agreed to work fewer hours and began working 15 hours per week.

Seck submitted that the restaurant’s delivery order revenue had dropped 37 per cent in the first and second quarters of 2025, claiming that it would be better for Seck to use Uber Eats and cease its own delivery operations.

It also submitted that Slabko was not the only one impacted by the business’s delivery order downturn and that it had reduced its driver numbers from seven in early 2025 to two from July to September 2025.

On 22 July 2025, Slabko discovered that he had been removed from Seck’s rostering system, believing that he had been dismissed.

Saunders accepted Slabko’s evidence that he was dismissed on this day, finding that he had not been rostered his regular part-time hours of work since 3 July 2025 and that his account had been deactivated.

Although the deputy president accepted that Seck had a valid reason to make Slabko redundant due to operational requirements, it ruled that it was not a genuine redundancy as Seck failed to consult Slabko about his dismissal before removing him from the roster.

Further, the commission ruled that Slabko’s termination was unfair as he was not afforded procedural fairness and the personal and financial impacts of the termination on Slabko, the primary earner for young dependants.

Upon consideration of the evidence, Saunders ruled the dismissal unfair, finding that, on the balance of probabilities, compliance with consultation obligations would have resulted in Slabko working for a further two weeks. Thus, the commission ordered Seck to pay Slabko $900, plus $108 in superannuation, for lost wages for the period between his termination on 22 July 2025 and 5 August 2025.

The case citation: Sergey Slabko v Seck Enterprises Pty Ltd T/A Pizza Hut North Sydney (U2025/12625).

Carlos Tse

Carlos Tse is a graduate journalist writing for Accountants Daily, HR Leader, Lawyers Weekly.