A former Uber Eats delivery driver has been unsuccessful in his attempt to have his deactivation from the platform overturned, after arguing that major road works in Canberra's Civic and an "inflexible" customer rating system were to blame for his poor performance.
Fair Work Commission upholds deactivation
In a decision published on Thursday, January 15, 2026, the Fair Work Commission detailed the reasons for the driver's termination and the strict customer satisfaction requirements for Canberra-based drivers. The driver's bid to be reinstated was rejected by Deputy President Lyndall Dean.
The case revealed that Uber first contacted the man on February 21, 2025, alerting him that his overall customer satisfaction rating had fallen to 81 per cent. This was below the newly introduced minimum target of 85 per cent for drivers in the capital, which came into effect in early 2025. The company noted the city's average rating was a much higher 93 per cent.
Road works and city challenges cited as major hurdles
In his defence, the driver pointed to the significant disruption caused by the light rail stage 2A construction on London Circuit and Northbourne Avenue, which began in mid-March 2025. He argued that constant road closures and changing traffic conditions made navigation and timely deliveries extremely difficult.
"I work in Canberra city centre where there are constant challenges," the driver wrote in a response to his deactivation notice on May 31, 2025. He described an environment of high-rise buildings, limited parking, and heavy traffic, where waiting for a legal parking spot to avoid fines often caused delays.
The driver also outlined other obstacles, such as encountering large, unleashed dogs or confusing building intercom systems, which sometimes forced him to ask customers to meet him outside. "Some customers are fine with it, others unfortunately get upset and leave low ratings," he stated.
'Arbitrary' rating system under fire
A central part of the driver's argument was that Uber's customer rating system was "inflexible, arbitrary and a manifestly flawed means of policing the conduct of drivers." He told the Commission the system lacked transparency and that he never received specific feedback on why his ratings were low.
He further contended that the 85 per cent minimum satisfaction rating was "entirely arbitrary" and noted that the vast majority of customers do not leave ratings at all, making the sample unrepresentative.
However, Deputy President Dean found that Uber had met its legal obligations, having provided the driver with multiple warnings and opportunities to seek support. "I accept that the 85 per cent minimum satisfaction rating is a legitimate threshold for [Uber] to put in place for drivers," the decision stated. "It is entitled to set standards and drivers agree to those standards when they decide to access the platform."
The ruling underscores the ongoing tensions in the gig economy between platform operators setting performance benchmarks and workers navigating real-world, unpredictable challenges that can impact their ability to meet those standards.
