He got the right advice in March. He didn't call the Commission until June
An Uber Eats driver who wrote to two Queensland politicians for help after losing access to the platform has had his unfair deactivation application dismissed - because he took too long to bring it.
The Fair Work Commission threw out the application on October 29, finding the driver had not established the "exceptional circumstances" needed to excuse a filing that landed 156 days late.
The driver was deactivated from the Uber Eats platform on January 19, 2026. His customer rating sat at around 75% - below the 85% minimum rating required by the platform to continue accepting deliveries. He said the drop was not his fault: network errors interfered with the app's navigation and slowed his delivery times, and on multiple occasions he picked up food from restaurants that was already damaged or cold.
Under the Fair Work Act, he had 21 days to challenge the deactivation. He did not lodge his application until June 24, 2026.
The politician detour
Rather than approaching the Commission, the driver wrote to two state MPs in early March 2026.
His letter to the first MP was, as the decision noted, "very articulate." In it, he described the deactivation as "unjust," said he had been given "no formal notice" that his status on the platform was at risk, and asked the politician to contact Uber on his behalf.
The response came on March 23 - not from that MP's office, but from the office of the second MP he had written to. It was clear and practical: there was a 21-day time limit for unfair dismissal applications, it was possible to have a case considered after that deadline, and the email included direct links to the Commission's website.
The driver later told the Commission that this response led him to believe he could not pursue the matter at all, because the 21-day deadline had already passed.
The Commission found that reading of the email "clearly incorrect." The MP's office had explicitly told him a late application was possible.
Wrong doors, lost months
From there, the driver tried other avenues. He said an entity called "drive down under" told him to take his case to court and pay $1,000, with the possibility of further costs. He said he had already paid $600. He visited the Maroochydore Magistrates Court, where staff referred him to a legal advisor. That advisor apparently told him to wait and see whether Uber would lift the restriction, or to try working for another platform.
Someone else suggested he delete his Uber accounts and create new ones. He tried. The platform restricted him again within minutes.
It was not until he "tried his luck" and contacted the Commission directly that he learned he could still apply for an extension of time.
Why it wasn't enough
To get a late application accepted, the driver needed to show "exceptional circumstances" - meaning something out of the ordinary course, unusual, or uncommon. Not necessarily a catastrophic event, but more than what workers in his position routinely experience.
The Commission weighed each of the factors the law requires.
On the central issue - why he was late - the Commission noted that not knowing about your legal options is, unfortunately, common among workers who lose their jobs or platform access. That alone does not clear the bar. And the driver's situation went further: even after he received clear advice from an MP's office in late March pointing him to the Commission and telling him a late application was possible, he waited another three months before lodging.
The driver mentioned during the hearing that his son had been burned by hot liquid in March 2026, and that he had family issues. But these were raised briefly and did not form a substantial basis for the delay.
One factor did work in the driver's favour. The Commission accepted his evidence that he had been actively trying to get his account reinstated with Uber since January 2026 - contacting the platform repeatedly, only to be told each time the restriction would stay. That effort counted as action taken to dispute the deactivation.
But it was the only factor that cut his way. Whether the platform suffered any disadvantage from the delay, the strength of the underlying claim, fairness compared to other workers in similar positions, and whether Uber followed the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code - the Commission treated each of those as neutral.
The result
Taking everything together - individually and in combination - the Commission found nothing that rose to the level of exceptional circumstances. It declined to extend time and dismissed the application.
For HR and workforce teams managing platform-based workers, the decision is an early marker: the Commission applies the same discipline to time limits under the unfair deactivation provisions as it does to traditional unfair dismissal claims. A worker who misses the 21-day window faces a high bar, even when they have been actively - if misdirectedly - trying to resolve things on their own.
