FWC Shuts Down “Reactivate and Avoid Liability” Playbook

| May 6, 2026

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has delivered a clear message to gig economy operators: you cannot sidestep unfair deactivation claims by simply switching a worker back on.

In Tanzeel Ur Rehman v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 953, the Commission confirmed it retains the power to issue binding reactivation orders and compensation, even where the platform has already voluntarily reinstated the worker.

The Facts in Brief

An Uber driver, Mr Ur Rehman, commenced work on 30 May 2023 and performed work on a regular basis until 15 December 2025, when his account on the Uber Driver Platform was deactivated following a failed background check.

Mr Ur Rehman made an application under the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) seeking an unfair deactivation remedy. This remedy is available to individuals who have been deactivated from a digital labour platform (such as Uber) and is similar to an unfair dismissal claim for employees.

The Fair Work Act now includes protections for “employee-like” workers performing work via digital labour platforms.

Uber reactivated Mr Ur Rehman’s account approximately two months later, on 20 February 2026. Despite this, Mr Ur Rehman continued to pursue his claim for lost pay arising from the period of deactivation.

Uber did not challenge the fairness of the deactivation itself. Instead, it argued that the reactivation—combined with assurances of continuity of service and unchanged terms—meant there was no utility in the FWC determining the claim for lost pay.

The Commission Rejected That Argument

The FWC rejected Uber’s position and confirmed that voluntary action does not displace its statutory powers, for three key reasons:

• Enforceability matters
  A Commission order carries legal force, whereas a platform’s promise does not;

• Clarity and certainty
  Formal orders remove ambiguity about rights and obligations; and

• No tactical workarounds
  Accepting Uber’s argument could encourage “tactical reinstatements” to avoid scrutiny and undermine the purpose of the regime.

The Outcome

Deputy President Beaumont issued a formal order requiring reactivation (to the extent not already completed) of Mr Ur Rehman’s access to the Uber Driver Platform on the same terms and conditions that applied prior to deactivation.

The Commission also found that Mr Ur Rehman was to be treated as having performed work on a regular basis during the deactivation period and awarded $7,096.96 in lost remuneration.

Why This Matters for Businesses in the Gig Economy

This decision strengthens the emerging unfair deactivation regime for “employee-like” workers and confirms that jurisdiction, once engaged, cannot be neutralised by late corrective action.

Businesses operating digital platforms should be aware that:

• compensation may still be awarded where loss has occurred.
• reactivation alone may not resolve disputes;
• the FWC can formalise outcomes regardless of voluntary action; and

Bottom line 

Reinstating a worker may mitigate harm — but it will not necessarily end the case. The FWC can, and will, formalise outcomes and award compensation where appropriate.

Managing digital platform workforces requires careful consideration of legal obligations and emerging regulatory risks.

IRiQ Law can assist with practical guidance on managing deactivations, reviewing platform processes, and reducing the risk of Fair Work Commission claims.

If you would like to discuss your current practices or review your processes, feel free to contact us.