He blamed his English. The Commission looked at what the riders actually reported
An Uber driver who two passengers reported for making them uncomfortable during trips has lost his bid to overturn his removal from the platform.
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the driver's unfair deactivation application on October 7, finding Uber followed the processes required under the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code - even though its warnings were sloppy and it failed to follow up with a key complainant.
The driver had worked as an Uber Eats delivery person since 2021 before signing on to drive passengers in March 2026. The trouble started almost immediately.
A late-night trip, then an Instagram request
On April 5, a rider reported that the driver had asked for her and her friend's Instagram accounts, quizzed them about their night out, and asked whether they had been drinking. The rider described the experience as creating "an unsafe environment."
Uber's response was a generic message telling the driver he "may have asked personal questions" that made a rider uncomfortable. The Commission later found that warning was far too vague - it should have spelled out that asking riders for their personal social media details was unacceptable and could lead to deactivation.
Then came the second complaint.
On July 2, a different rider reported that the driver told her she should be a model, said he wanted to take photos of her and take her to India, and asked for her Instagram. According to the complaint, the rider said she did not give out that information. She also reported that the driver asked if the drop-off was where she was staying. The rider said she lied about her location, waited until the driver left before entering her accommodation, and noted he "took a little bit to leave."
Uber tried to call the rider the next day to follow up. She missed the call but messaged back saying she was available. Uber never called again.
The Commission did not mince words about that failure. Speaking with a complainant is a step "expressly contemplated" by the Code for sexual harassment allegations, and a phone call would give the platform an "excellent opportunity" to confirm the complaint details and make the rider aware a driver could lose platform access as a result.
The driver was suspended on July 4 and sent a preliminary deactivation notice citing "multiple instances of sexual misconduct." He was offered the chance to respond in writing or by phone. He chose both.
The phone call that did not help
During a call with an Uber representative on July 7, the driver said his limited English meant he had trouble understanding the passenger. He said the rider had been the one asking him personal questions and had offered him a cat, and that he had agreed to things because he did not understand what was being said. He also pointed to his track record - roughly 800 trips since 2021, with around 350 five-star ratings.
The Commission was not persuaded. It found a lack of English skills could not explain the conduct described in the July 2 complaint - there was nothing to suggest the rider had any difficulty understanding the driver. And the bulk of those 800 trips had been Uber Eats deliveries, which the Commission noted is "quite different to driving passengers around in a vehicle."
Uber sent its final deactivation notice on July 10. The driver filed his application two weeks later.
The Code held up - but Uber still got a serve
The case turned on whether the deactivation complied with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code, which sets out the process platform operators must follow before cutting off a gig worker's access. If a deactivation is consistent with the Code, the worker cannot meet the definition of an unfair deactivation under the Fair Work Act 2009.
The Commission found Uber's two warnings fell short of the Code's requirements. The April warning was too general. The July warning was more specific but referred to the wrong trip date.
None of that mattered in the end. The Code allows platforms to skip warnings altogether where the alleged conduct is serious enough to justify immediate suspension. The Commission found the July 2 complaint easily cleared that bar.
On the key question - whether the driver's response to the complaints was adequate - the Commission found it was not. Under the Code, when a worker fails to adequately address a complaint that would, if true, constitute a valid reason for deactivation, the termination is treated as being for a valid reason. That provision applied here.
Even without it, the Commission said it would have reached the same result. Two complaints from riders without a history of frequent complaints, lodged within a short window, gave Uber reasonable grounds.
The application was dismissed.
For platform operators and the HR teams advising them, the decision is a practical walkthrough of what the Code requires at each step - and a clear signal that cutting corners on warnings and complainant follow-up will be called out, even when the deactivation itself holds up.
The Commission's findings relate to whether Uber's processes complied with the Code. The complaints made by riders have not been tested in any court or tribunal, and no findings of fact were made about whether the alleged conduct occurred.
