Mental Health Break Defeats Deactivation Claim
In the recent decision of Priyansh Singh Panwar v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1578 (the Decision) the Fair Work Commission (the FWC) has declined an application for an unfair deactivation on the basis that s 536LD(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FWA) concerns a single period of work, rather than multiple periods which add up to at least 6 months.
Case Overview
The applicant, Mr. Panwar (the Applicant) commenced performing work through the Uber Delivery App on 28th October 2023. The Applicant undertook a few deliveries in late October 2023 and then did not perform any work on the Uber Delivery App until January 2024. The Applicant undertook deliveries until mid-June 2024, in which he left for India seeking family support, after a relationship breakdown. From late July to late October 2024, the Applicant undertook deliveries from the Uber Delivery App, after which he took a 9-week mental health break. The applicant states that he was advised by his doctor to not drive after taking antidepressants. Deliveries were recommenced in late December 2024.
The Applicant’s account was deactivated from the Uber Delivery App on 23rd April 2025. After which he made an application to the FWC for an unfair deactivation remedy pursuant to s 536LU of the FWA.
Key Issues
The Applicant argues that he has satisfied the requirements under s 536LD, having worked on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months, and is therefore protected from unfair deactivation. The Respondent, Portier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber Eats, contends that the Applicant is not protected from unfair deactivation because at the time of his deactivation, he had not been performing work on the Uber Delivery App on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months.
Outcome
In determining whether the Applicant had been unfairly deactivated, Deputy President Saunders reviewed the provisions set out in s 536LD of the FWA. Ultimately, Deputy President Saunders rejected the application on the basis that the Applicant had not been performing work on the Uber Delivery App on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months.
In arriving at this conclusion, Deputy President Saunders stated that s 536LD of the FWA “requires a point-in-time inquiry”; it asks whether at the time a person was deactivated, had they been performing work on a regular basis for a period of at least 6 months. Deputy President Saunders went on to say that the provision of the FWA is not concerned with whether the person has, at any point in time, completed a 6-month period of work, but had been performing work regularly for at least 6 months immediately preceding deactivation.
Deputy President Saunders also stated that the reference to “a period” in the s 536LD(c) suggests that the point-in-time inquiry is “concerned with a single period of work, not multiple periods of work that cumulatively add up to at least 6 months”.
Therefore, the application was dismissed as the Applicant was not performing work on the Uber Delivery App for a period of at least 6 months, prior to the deactivation, as he had taken a 9-week mental health break.
Key Takeaways
This decision emphasises the importance of understanding the meaning behind words in s 536LD of the FWA. Furthermore, the decision demonstrates the importance of needing to understand your rights as an employee-like worker.
If you have any questions about the Decision and what it could mean for you, please do not hesitate to contact Nick Stevens, Josh Hoggett, Evelyn Rivera or Ayla Hutchison.
