Uber’s fully automated complaint-handling processes are “illogical”, “arbitrary” and ultimately unlawful, the Fair Work Commission has determined in a decision on the transport giant’s thumbs up or down rating system that has major implications for how tech platforms manage contractors.
The searing assessment was delivered when an Uber Eats driver who had been banned appealed an earlier decision that upheld his effective sacking, with the full bench finding multiple flaws in the internal processes of the $210 billion global behemoth that breach laws giving gig economy workers employee-like protections.
The case involved Canberra driver Umair Ayyub, who worked for Uber from 2018 until his deactivation in 2025 because of a rule requiring its delivery drivers to maintain an average customer satisfaction rating of at least 85 per cent on their last 100 trips.
Shortly after the rule was announced, Ayyub was given a warning in February 2025, due to his 81 per cent average. He was issued two further warnings in the subsequent three months. After his final warning in May, the driver managed to improve his average rating score to 85.7 per cent.
However, Uber proceeded to sack him because his customer feedback scores also failed to meet a secondary performance requirement that only kicked in for drivers issued a warning: that their 10 most recent deliveries where customers decided to give a rating also had to be more than 85 per cent positive.
Initially, the commission upheld Ayyub’s deactivation, finding that Uber’s 85 per cent minimum satisfaction rating requirement was a valid reason.
After Ayyub appealed with the support of the Transport Workers Union, a full bench of commissioners determined that Uber had breached federal laws introduced last year in a range of ways.
A key claim in his appeal was that many of the thumbs down against him were unfairly left by customers, particularly inner-city residents in high-rise buildings, frustrated that deliveries could take longer than expected due to heavy traffic and parking limitations.
As a result of the added time performing deliveries to units in high rises, especially without intercom, as well as phone reception issues in dense areas causing Uber app glitches, the driver would often request customers come downstairs to collect their order – something he said contributed to negative ratings that were out of his control.
The full bench found Uber failed to properly consider Ayyub’s reasons. “Negatively rated trips only constituted 1–2 per cent of all the trips he undertook. The overwhelming majority of deliveries attracted no merchant or customer feedback,” the decision said, but noted this record “was ignored” by Uber.
The commissioners determined that Uber’s complaints handling process – from a first negative rating through to the moment they are issued a preliminary deactivation warning – was entirely automated.
“No human is involved in any decision-making,” the commissioners found, adding that drivers can be effectively sacked without ever being informed about the substance of a complaint against them.
“Individual ratings are frequently unexplained, wholly unverified and may well have been arbitrary, unreasonable or have no foundation,” the decision said.
Once the preliminary warning is issued, a driver can respond in writing to an operations team based in the Philippines and India. Only if a driver raises one of five topic matters in their response – safety, vehicle breakdowns, illicit requests from customers, fraudulent eaters or wrong addresses – will the operations team consider the driver’s explanation and potential reactivation.
Emilee Fairlie, Uber’s senior industrial relations manager, confirmed in evidence that Ayyub’s attempt to be reinstated and settle the issue directly with Uber was ignored by the company because he didn’t invoke one of the pre-flagged topic areas the operations team was permitted to consider.
The full bench also found that the requirements for positive customer feedback were a “blunt instrument” and that simultaneous tests for drivers already at the warning stage made the entire system “illogical and arbitrary”.
The commissioners ordered Ayyub’s account be reactivated, and that the company compensate him for lost pay in a decision with implications for the way that technology platforms such as Uber manage large workforces of contractors via algorithms.
An Uber spokesperson said the business was disappointed by the outcome, which it believed “contradicts all previous decisions by the Fair Work Commission in relation to ratings for delivery people” under the code. They added that it highlights concerns Uber has that the unfair deactivation laws are not operating as intended.
Michael Kaine, national secretary of the TWU, said the decision “completely unpicked Uber’s ratings system and exposed its arbitrary nature”.
“Clearly it is utter lunacy to permanently cut off someone’s livelihood because of a ‘thumbs down’ with no objective measure of work quality,” Kaine said.
The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.
Elias Visontay is a National Consumer Affairs Reporter at The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.Connect via email.