Fair Work Commission Orders Amazon Reactivation in Significant Unfair Deactivation Decision
Hennings Workplace Lawyers represented an Amazon Flex Delivery Driver who was deactivated after he took a few steps into a house - at the request of an occupant - to safely deliver a package. Following success in the extension of time proceedings before the Full Bench, the Commission has now found that Amazon unfairly deactivated Bandameeda, ordering his reactivation and the restoration of his lost pay.
The Fair Work Commission’s decision in Gopal Bandameeda v Amazon Commercial Services Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3842 is one of the most significant unfair deactivation cases decided to date under the new statutory scheme regulating digital labour platforms in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
In a detailed and carefully reasoned decision, Commissioner Allison found that Amazon unfairly deactivated Bandameeda, an experienced delivery partner who had completed more than 22,000 deliveries for the platform. The Commission was satisfied that there was no valid reason, let alone serious misconduct, to justify permanent deactivation. The Commission was also satisfied that Amazon failed to follow processes and otherwise comply with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code, ordering reactivation and the restoration of lost pay.
Hennings Workplace Lawyers acted for Bandameeda throughout the Full Bench extension of time proceedings and the final merits hearing.
A Single Delivery, a Permanent Deactivation
Mr Bandameeda had delivered approximately 22,000 packages for Amazon Flex over a two-year period and held a “Fantastic” performance rating. On 4 April 2025, while making a delivery:
the front door of the property was wide open
he called out “Amazon delivery” twice
a male voice responded “yeah, drop it inside”
he stepped a few steps inside and placed the parcel on a table
Later that day, the customer complained that a delivery partner had entered their home. Without interviewing the customer further, speaking to Bandameeda or holding any discussion as required by the Code, Amazon suspended and then permanently deactivated his account less than 24 hours after issuing Bandameeda the required Preliminary Deactivation Notice.
Amazon alleged “serious misconduct” based on a rule buried in linked online material stating that delivery partners must not enter customer homes “under any circumstances”.
Full Bench Decision on Jurisdiction and When Deactivation Took Effect
Amazon raised jurisdictional objections, but the Commission confirmed that Mr Bandameeda was a protected employee-like worker under Part 3-4B of the Act. He had worked regularly for more than six months and had earned below the contractor high-income threshold.
However, most notably, the Full Bench determined that the deactivation took effect on 9 April 2025, when all three elements of a deactivation contained in s 536LG had occurred. This meant that the application was lodged out of time. However, the Full Bench accepted our submissions, which demonstrated the very difficult personal circumstances Bandameeda was experiencing at the time.
Amazon Failed to Comply with the Deactivation Code
In the merit decision, Commissioner Allison found multiple, serious breaches of the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code.
No Genuine Opportunity for Discussion
Although Amazon’s notice said Bandameeda could “request a discussion”, the process was illusory. When he responded within hours asking Amazon to call his wife or friend to help explain, Amazon took no action. Bandameeda’s repeated requests to talk to someone yielded nothing more than auto-replies.
The Commission rejected Amazon’s argument that he had not used the “right words” in requesting a discussion:
“It is disingenuous for Amazon to argue that he was not requesting a discussion because he did not use the exact words ‘I request a discussion’.”
Amazon never arranged a call, never explained how to request one, and ignored repeated pleas to speak to a human decision-maker.
Failure to Consider the Worker’s Response
The evidence showed:
no human decision-maker considered Mr Bandameeda’s explanation
the final deactivation decision issued less than 24 hours later - and well before the 48 hours Amazon initially provided within which to respond
the final notice made no reference to his response
This breached the Code’s requirement that responses be genuinely considered and that reasonable further inquiries be made.
Unreasonable Timeframes
Although Amazon told Mr Bandameeda he had 48 hours to respond, it deactivated him in less than half that time. The Commission found this fundamentally inconsistent with procedural fairness.
No Valid Reason — and Certainly No Serious Misconduct
The Commission found Amazon failed to establish any valid reason for deactivation under s 536LH (1) (a) of the Act.
Applying Full Bench authority, the Commission emphasised:
a platform must prove the conduct occurred, not merely hold a belief
serious misconduct requires a high evidentiary threshold
not every policy breach justifies termination
Findings of Fact Favoured the Worker
The Commissioner accepted Mr Bandameeda’s evidence in full, finding that:
a household member was present when he made the delivery
he was instructed to place the parcel inside
the delivery partner acted honestly and reasonably
there was no safety risk and no wilful breach
The customer declined to participate further, and Amazon chose not to call them as a witness. That choice mattered.
Conflicting Platform Rules Matter
Critically, the Commission found Bandameeda faced a complex situation where a number of Amazon’s requirements conflicted, and it was not clear which requirement should be prioritised. Specifically, Bandameeda was required to:
avoid leaving parcels unsecured
protect parcels from weather
follow customer instructions
behave professionally and respectfully
In those circumstances, stepping a few steps inside to comply with a verbal instruction was a reasonable choice, not misconduct.
Defect Notices Are Not Warnings
Amazon relied heavily on email communications which it described in its evidence as prior “defect notices”. The Commission rejected this outright, observing that:
most were automated
many were successfully appealed
none were framed as warnings
none concerned unauthorised entry
A “Fantastic” rating and 22,000 deliveries cut strongly against Amazon’s narrative. Commissioner Allison observed that “[g]iven Mr Bandameeda has a “Fantastic” dashboard standing, I am not of the view that the defect notices provide any substantial ground to suggest he had a history of not complying with Amazon requirements”.
Remedy — Reactivation and Lost Pay Ordered
The Commission ordered:
reactivation within 7 days
engagement on the same terms as before
restoration of lost earnings (quantum to be determined)
The Commission rejected Amazon’s argument that trust and confidence had been irreparably damaged, noting the worker’s repeated apologies, insight, and commitment to comply in future.
Why This Decision Matters
This decision sends a clear message: digital labour platforms are not exempt from procedural fairness, evidence standards, proportionality and the need to set rules that are clear and do not create conflicting requirements.
Automated systems, template notices and rushed decisions will not survive scrutiny under the new regime.
Why the Applicant Succeeded
Key reasons the application succeeded:
Amazon breached the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code
Bandameeda was denied a real opportunity to explain himself
No evidence that a human decision-maker properly considered his response
The alleged misconduct was not proven
Bandameeda’s conduct was reasonable in context
There was no valid reason and no serious misconduct
Deactivation was disproportionate given Bandameeda’s record - including over 22,000 deliveries
Key Learnings for Platform Operators and Workers
For Digital Labour Platform Operators
A “request for a discussion” means any clear request to speak to a human about a proposed deactivation
Responses must be genuinely reviewed before decisions are made
Timeframes must be reasonable and honoured
Serious misconduct requires proof, not assumptions
Policies and other terms must not conflict with one another, making obligations uncertain
Policies must be clearly communicated, especially where language barriers exist
Automated notices are not warnings
For Employee-Like Workers
You have enforceable rights under the Fair Work Act
Do not ignore any communications which suggest that you have failed to meet standards or obligations
You are entitled to procedural fairness before deactivation
A single allegation does not equal misconduct
Your delivery history and performance matter
The Commission can order reactivation and lost earnings
If you operate in the gig economy - or work within it - this decision is required reading, as cases involving digital platform workers attract increasing attention and awareness locally and around the world, including this ABC article on the decision in this case. Digital labour platforms cannot outsource the deactivation of workers to automation.
