His Uber account was cut off, but the law says that's not a dismissal

A failed unfair dismissal claim against Uber has put Australia's growing divide between employees and gig workers squarely in focus.

When Narinder Handa had his Uber delivery driver account deactivated on 10 January 2025, he did what many workers would do — he sought legal recourse. The problem was that the remedy he chose was the wrong one entirely, and it ended his case before it even began.

On 27 February 2026, Deputy President Masson of the Fair Work Commission dismissed Handa's application against Portier Pacific Pty Ltd, trading as Uber. The finding was direct: Handa was not an employee, and his unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospects of success.

The Commission was unequivocal: "He was clearly not an employee but was employee like worker claiming to have been unfairly deactivated from a digital labour platform." That single distinction decided everything.

Handa had lodged his application on 23 December 2025, some 347 days after his account was deactivated. The respondent raised three objections — that Handa was not an employee, that he was not dismissed, and that the application was filed outside the 21-day period. But it was the question of employment status that proved fatal. Because Handa was not an employee, no amount of argument about the circumstances of his deactivation could have saved the claim.

Deputy President Masson concluded: "I am satisfied that the application has no...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMixgFBVV95cUxOTkJQN2FaaUtveTNDZ1NyMVFQ...