Uber blasts laws as it’s forced to reinstate banned driver

A workplace tribunal has ordered Uber to reinstate a driver it banned over 12 complaints alleging inappropriate touching, spitting on and swearing at passengers as well as speeding, as the rideshare giant continues to rally against the government’s gig economy worker protections.

Uber’s loss follows a string of Fair Work Commission (FWC) decisions that have scolded the company’s complaints handling processes and repeatedly found it to have failed to properly engage with new laws introduced last year that give gig economy workers an employee-like appeals avenue to fight “deactivation” via the commission.

Despite the Albanese government last month amending the unfair deactivation code to help rideshare companies act quickly on sexual harassment allegations, Uber lost this case largely due to its failure to verify complaints and improperly informing the driver.

While the deactivation at the centre of the case predates the amendment, Uber has said the outcome is proof that further changes are needed. A consistent theme in its FWC losses is its reliance on unverified customer complaints without providing further evidence, which Uber claims is to avoid re-traumatising riders.

In the latest case, Uber deactivated a Melbourne driver who worked on the platform from December 2021 until November 2025, over 12 rider complaints.

The historic complaints alleged aggressive language, dangerous driving, disputes over luggage, and physical altercations including pushing a rider.

In multiple instances, Uber suspended the driver but later reinstated him after he denied the claims. This included a 2025 incident involving alleged inappropriate touching where GPS data contradicted the rider’s complaint.

Another incident that led to a temporary suspension and subsequent reactivation included a claim that the driver pushed a passenger and forced them out of his car after picking them up on Chapel Street. The driver denied wrongdoing, telling an Uber investigator the passengers he picked up were drunk, and pulled his handbrake while in motion, so he asked them to leave his vehicle.

Others claimed he kicked them out of his car for smelling of cigarettes; threatened to hurt them and asked for extra money for having had to wait for them; was speeding and using his phone; told a solo female rider to “f— off” after getting angry for having to wait for her; and tried to stop a group taking their luggage out of his car after they closed their door with the seatbelt slung outside which scratched the frame.

His final complaint in November 2025 alleged he became “extremely hostile”, used profanity, and spat at a group of customers with a pet. The rider suspected the outburst was racially motivated.

“As a Chinese person, I suspect that he may have acted this way because he saw that we are Asian,” the complaint continued.

Uber immediately suspended the driver, but the rider did not respond to follow-up requests for more information. Despite the driver denying the claims, Uber permanently terminated his account shortly after, prompting his FWC appeal.

“He said that he was a family oriented, religious and respectful individual and the complaints were entirely baseless,” Commissioner Oanh Thi Tran said. At the FWC, the driver argued Uber had not followed the fair process and given him the opportunity to respond to complaints.

Uber, meanwhile, argued the deactivation was valid to preserve rider safety, claiming the sheer volume of complaints meant they were likely true.

It also argued it was exempt from needing to issue formal warnings – as required under the law – because the pattern of behaviour made it unsafe for him to keep working.

However, Tran found the deactivation unlawful. Crucially, Uber directly asked the driver to respond to only three of the 12 complaints over his four-year tenure. Four complaints were never put to him.

Tran found the deactivation was unfair, and that Uber had not proved why it had deemed the driver’s behaviour so concerning that it was entitled to the exemption to suspend him without issuing a formal warning.

Without the exemption, this meant Uber needed to follow the process of informing the driver of complaints and giving him a chance to respond, which Tran found it failed to do.

Tran found Uber breached the code by not giving the driver a fair chance to respond. She also ruled Uber failed to prove the alleged conduct actually occurred, noting its reliance on “hearsay”.

“Uber have accepted the veracity of the entirety of the rider’s complaints without having regard to [the driver’s] denial of it,” Tran said in relation to the final complaint that led to the termination.

Tran ordered Uber to reactivate the driver and pay lost wages based on his $1118 weekly average. He claimed Uber was his main source of income with which he supported his family of three children.

Nicole Ashcroft, Head of Safety for Uber, said “this case is a clear example of the continued limitations of the current system”. “This case involved 12 complaints covering interpersonal conflict and dangerous driving, backed up by rider complaints and platform data,” she said.

“The code changes fail to address evidence issues and we are concerned the Fair Work Commission continues to fail to recognise the nature of platform work by not giving proper weight to patterns of complaint,” Ashcroft said, adding that “urgent reform” was needed.

Responding to Uber’s complaints, a spokesperson for workplace minister Amanda Rishworth said “the amendments were developed in consultation with stakeholders, including digital platforms and unions”.

The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.