6-Months Of Continuous Service Required for FWC To Exercise New Powers for Gig Economy Workers

The Fair Work Commission (the FWC) have exercised new powers to deal with disputes regarding gig economy workers and ‘unfair deactivation’ in the recent decision of Ibrahim Jibril [2025] FWC 1289 (the Decision).

As such, the FWC determined that an Uber driver was not protected by the new unfair deactivation provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act) in the absence of 6-months of regular or continuous service on the platform.

Outline of the Provisions

Applications can be made to the FWC under section 536LU of the FW Act on the grounds that an individual has been unfairly deactivated from a digital labour platform.

Furthermore, section 536LD of the FW Act protects a person from being unfairly deactivated, if at that time the person had been performing work on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months.

 The Decision

Mr. Jibril (the Applicant) made an application to the FWC under s 536LU of the Act after his account on the Uber driver platform, operated by Raiser Pacific Pty Limited (the Respondent) was deactivated in March 2025, after three and a half months of usage (the Application).

The Respondent held that the Applicant was not a person ‘protected from unfair deactivation’ as he had not performed regular work for a period of at least 6 months, as required under section 536LD(c) of the FW Act.

Alternatively, the Applicant argued as he had previously performed work through the Uber driver platform between 2017 and 2019, in addition to the recent three and a half months from November 2024 to March 2025, the 6-month requirement had been satisfied.

However, Deputy President Colman held that to be a person protected from unfair deactivation, “for a period of six months” required an individual’s work to be continuous and “form part of the same period’ in which the worker is deactivated. Consequently, Deputy President Colman dismissed the Application.

Key Takeaways

This decision of the FWC demonstrates the specific interpretation of the Act and how it is applied to applications made to the FWC. Applications made based on the misinterpretations of the Act will not be substantiated in the FWC.

If you have any questions about this case and what it could mean for you, please do not hesitate to contact Nick Stevens, Josh Hoggett, Evelyn Rivera or Ayla Hutchison.