2 hours ago
2
A driver banned from Uber for touching his groin during a trip, which he claimed he did to scratch a fungal infection, has failed to get his job back on a technicality in a case that led the Fair Work Commission to blast the rideshare giant over how it handles complaints.
The Victorian driver produced a tube of ointment he was using to treat his fungal infection as evidence during a commission hearing to appeal his October deactivation from Uber following a customer’s complaint.
The driver, a Somali speaker who struggled with English, claimed he was not properly informed about the nature of the complaint when the $218 billion company first suspended him on October 15.
Commissioner Trevor Clarke, who previously worked for the Australian Council of Trade Unions, noted Uber’s “failure...to make any mention of the complaint [it] said it received” when it told the driver he was suspended.
Uber called the driver later that day, but he asked for them to call back the next day, as he was driving and didn’t have an interpreter. The next day, when Uber called back, the driver took the call “without the assistance of an interpreter, instead relying on a person whom he had met in a shop to assist him”.
During that phone exchange, the driver said he wasn’t made aware that his suspension was due to an allegation that he had been touching his own “private areas” whilst transporting a passenger. Instead, through the translation of the person in the shop, the driver – who this masthead was unable to contact – believed one of his passengers had claimed he touched them.
“That assistance appears to have been of little genuine assistance,” Clarke noted. “The evidence in relation to that conversation suggested that the [driver] misunderstood the nature of some of the complaints that were being raised against him and that he answered questions based on what that other person [in the shop] suggested he should say,” he said.
Uber then permanently deactivated his account on October 28. He claimed that after being deactivated he was unable to use the app to correspond with Uber about his situation.
Only when the matter escalated to a Fair Work hearing in March, when the man represented himself and was cross-examined, did he first understand the allegation against him. He then responded that he had a fungal infection that causes an itch, which becomes worse in hot weather. He then “produced during the hearing a tube of ointment that he applies for the purposes of managing that infection”, Clarke said.
This was the first time Uber had learned of the driver’s true response to the complaint, Clarke said.
At the time of his deactivation, the man claimed he was unaware there was an appeals avenue for deactivated drivers.
Uber, in responding to the appeal, said two previous complaints, in December 2017 and January 2018, had been made against the driver, but that these had only led to warnings and that it had not asked the driver for an explanation at the time. The nature of those complaints is unclear.
New laws, introduced by the Albanese government last year, mean that gig economy workers who believe their accounts were unfairly deactivated by their platforms can appeal to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to access protections similar to unfair dismissal claims.
Since the laws came into effect in February 2025, dozens of cases appealing Uber deactivations that have been referred to the commission have followed a similar pattern: a customer lodges a brief complaint about a driver, alleging inappropriate behaviour through an in-app chat, Uber then notifies the driver of the claim, the driver denies the claim, and then Uber ultimately deactivates their account, effectively barring them from working.
In several cases reported by this masthead, drivers whose claims are deemed technically eligible under the laws met little resistance from Uber, largely because the company does not gather further evidence from complainants.
This masthead does not suggest any driver wrongdoing, rather, that Uber’s complaints handling process and communications have been repeatedly criticised by the FWC. Labor has acknowledged platforms’ handling of sexual misconduct complaints is subpar, and has conceded its unfair deactivation laws need bolstering.
However, in this latest case concerning the Victorian driver, the Clarke found Uber failed “to properly specify its concerns” when first suspending his account.
The driver only learned of the FWC appeals avenue from a taxi driver friend of his, about five weeks after his deactivation - which meant that when he lodged his appeal in late December, it was already past the 21-day eligibility window.
As such, the driver sought a time extension so his appeal could be considered, claiming exceptional circumstances applied. However, Clarke declined to grant him an extended deadline. He found the driver’s reasons – his language barrier and his reliance on non-professional help – meant that even if Uber had properly informed him of the reason for his suspension, it was likely not the main cause for his delayed lodgement.
Despite the driver’s appeal falling over, Clarke was scathing of Uber’s processes.
“It would be remiss of me, having regard to the act’s overarching objective of providing for cooperative workplace relations, not to encourage [Uber] to reflect on whether, had that explanation been given earlier, a final deactivation would have followed,” Clarke said.
An Uber spokesperson said the company stood by its decision in the matter, and insisted that its complaint reviews are “human-led by an expert incident response team”.
“We know that losing access to the Uber app impacts livelihoods, and we do not take these decisions lightly,” they said. “We always seek to ensure that driver-partners and delivery people are treated fairly while balancing this with our absolute commitment to safety for the community.”
The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.
