安杰视点 AnJie Spotlights

劳务外包用工模式的法律风险分析与应对建议

一、劳务外包用工模式的发展现状世界银行发布的《2019世界发展报告》提出，未来劳动力市场将会进一

步变成“零工”，而不是工作。换言之，灵活的用工模式将会进一步增大比例，并可能部分取代传统的劳动关系用工模式。现阶段，基于对“灵活”一词的不

同理解，我国的灵活用工包含以非全日制用工为代表的时间上的灵活、以劳务派遣为代表的雇佣形式上的灵活，和以劳务外包为代表的服务形态上的灵活。以劳务外包为代表的外包用工模式，具有无特殊的限制性或禁止性法律规

定、发包方与劳务外包人员之间不建立劳动关系且不受劳动法调整、除特殊行业外对于承包方无特殊资质要求等特点，已被诸多企业所采用。近期，浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅颁布《关于优化新业态劳动用工服务

的指导意见》。《意见》提及在电子商务、网络约车、网络送餐、快递物流等新业态经济蓬勃发展的背景下，用人单位可依法使用多样化的用工方式，“未与新业态企业建立劳动关系的新业态从业人员，新业态企业可以通过劳务外包、加盟协作和其他合作关系等形式，与新业态从业人员签订民事协议，合理确定企业、从业人员、合作单位的权利和义务”。随着劳务外包用工模式被越来越多的企业所采用，在实践中也已出现企业

劳务外包用工管理不规范，甚至利用劳务外包用工模式规避劳动法律责任等诸多问题，并已给企业造成较大法律风险。本文拟结合实践案例对劳务外包用工模式的法律风险进行分析并提出应对建议。

二、劳务外包与劳务派遣的区别2013年 7月 1日，《中华人民共和国劳动合同法（修订）》正式实施。

此次修法针对劳务派遣用工过多过滥、劳务派遣人员合法权益得不到有效保护、同工不同酬等问题，对劳务派遣用工形式进行了严格的规范与限制。由于修订后的法律对劳务派遣用工岗位、用工比例、同工同酬、法律责任等问题作出新

的规定，大量使用劳务派遣用工模式的企业面临用工成本增加、法律风险加大的现实状况。在上述背景下，服务外包日益成为多方关注的焦点。很多主要经营劳务派

遣业务的人力资源管理公司纷纷开发或者强化服务外包业务，并将之作为劳务派遣的最佳替代用工形式积极向大量使用劳务派遣制职工的企业进行推荐。很多企业将劳务派遣用工模式转为劳务外包用工模式。为防止企业通过劳务外包用工模式规避法律对于劳务派遣用工模式的限制，

人力资源和社会保障部于 2014年颁布实施的《劳务派遣暂行规定》第二十七条明确规定：“用人单位以承揽、外包等名义，按劳务派遣用工形式使用劳务外包人员的，按照本规定处理”。然而，该规定对于如何界定“假外包、真派遣”并无明确解释，仲裁、诉讼司法实践中对此也无统一的裁审标准和尺度。以下就两种用工模式分析和对比如下：

1. 劳务派遣

劳务派遣，是指由劳务派遣公司与劳务派遣人员订立劳动合同，劳务派遣公司根据与实际用工单位之间签订的协议，将劳务派遣人员派至实际用工单位处工作的一种用工模式。在三方关系中，劳务派遣公司与劳务派遣人员是法律上的劳动合同关系；劳务派遣公司与实际用工单位之间是民事关系，双方通过

签订劳务派遣协议明确双方权利与义务；实际用工单位与劳务派遣人员之间是劳务用工关系，劳务派遣人员直接向实际用工单位提供劳务，实际用工单位对劳务派遣人员直接进行工作安排和指挥监督。

2. 劳务外包从企业管理角度来看，劳务外包是指企业为了将有限资源专注于其核心竞

争力，利用外部专业服务商的劳动力，来完成原来由企业内部完成的工作，从而达到降低成本、提高效率、提升企业对市场环境迅速应变能力并优化企业核心竞争力的一种用工模式。劳务外包的三方法律关系中，承包方与劳务外包人员之间是劳动合同关系或其他雇佣关系；承包方与发包方是民事合同关系；发包方与劳务外包人员之间无直接关系，在具体的外包业务完成过程中发包方一般只是根据服务项目的具体工作要求，通过承包方对劳务外包人员进行间接的

指挥。

3. 基本区别从前述分析可以看出，劳务派遣关系中，企业注重的是对劳动过程的管理，

用工单位直接对劳务派遣人员进行指挥监督、工作安排；劳务派遣公司在派出劳务派遣人员后，并不参与劳动过程。而劳务外包关系中，企业注重的是对工作结果的管理，劳务外包人员为承包方提供劳动；发包单位一般并不参与劳动过程的管理，甚至无需关心或者干预承包方用什么人、用多少人，只结合外包服务项目的完成情况，根据与承包方签订的劳务外包协议行使权利、履行义务。劳务外包与劳务派遣的基本区别可以总结如下：

劳务外包 劳务派遣与合同方的法律关系

承揽合同、服务合同、技术开发合同、委托代理等

劳务派遣合同

与劳务提供方的关系

无直接关系 劳务用工关系

对劳务提供方的管理权限

一般不进行直接管理 直接管理

应用的业务领域 非核心业务 部分可为核心业务对外损失赔偿责任承担

承包单位 用工单位

劳动争议风险 承包单位承担 用工单位承担连带

责任工作成果衡量标准 完成外包服务事项 按约定提供劳务派

遣人员

三、劳务外包用工模式常见法律风险分析实践中，如发包方与承包方签订书面协议，明确约定双方之间为外包关系，

且劳务外包人员的劳动合同签订主体、工资发放主体、社保缴纳主体均与发包方无关，则发包方与劳务外包人员一般不会被认定为构成事实劳动关系。在吕中群与强生（中国）有限公司等劳动争议二审民事判决书（【2018】

京 02民终 5439 号）中，法院认为“吕中群与奥维思公司签订劳动合同，由奥维思公司向其支付工资，奥维思北分公司受奥维思公司委托，为吕中群代为缴纳社会保险。吕中群销售强生公司的产品、接受强生公司的业务指导，是基于奥维思公司与强生公司之间的服务外包协议，并不能当然证明其与强生公司建立了劳动关系。”在曹杰与中国电信股份有限公司北京分公司劳动争议二审民事判决书（【2016】京 01民终 2093 号）中，法院认为“曹杰与信元公司签订有劳动合同，且与信元公司签订劳动合同期间，其工资由信元公司支付，社会保险亦由信元公司缴纳，可见其劳动关系中的用人单位并非电信公司。”

然而，我们注意到，在部分案件中，法院会对发包方与承包方费用结算方式、劳务外包人员用工管理方式等情况进行审查，并以此作为认定发包方与劳务外包人员存在劳务派遣用工关系甚至事实劳动关系的依据。

1. 劳务外包被认定为劳务派遣如前所述，《劳务派遣暂行规定》对于 “假外包、真派遣”虽有禁止，但

并无明确解释。通过案例检索，我们发现司法机关会从以下方面对用工模式属于劳务外包还是劳务派遣进行判断：（1）费用结算方式费用结算方式可以从侧面反映出合同标的的内容，劳务外包服务协议应约

定标的是完成的工作量，结算方式应以工作量来衡量。如发包方与承包方就劳务外包费用的结算方式以人数而非工作量作为结算方式，则该合同标的存在被认定为劳动力而非工作成果，进而导致劳务外包存在被认定为劳务派遣的法律风险。在樊文斌与中油长城钻井有限责任公司、北京众齐劳务服务有限公司劳动争议案（【2017】京 0102民初 8163 号）中，法院认为“樊文斌在工作岗位仍然接受长城钻探的管理，长城钻探与众齐公司仍然是按照人数来结算。并不符合服务外包协议的特征。故本院认定，虽然长城钻探与众齐公司签订了服务外包协议，其本质上仍然是劳务派遣关系。”（2）用工管理方式如发包方对劳务外包人员直接进行用工管理，例如对劳务外包人员的工作

成果和出勤情况均有管理和要求，即使劳务外包人员与承包方签订有书面劳动合同，如员工请求确认劳务派遣关系，则该劳务外包也存在被认定为劳务派遣的法律风险。在丽都饭店有限公司与许广明劳动争议二审案（【2014】三中民终字第 15106 号）中，法院认为“首先，丽都饭店与华澳公司、锅碗瓢盆公司签订有《用工协议》，许广明等均系直接进入丽都饭店面试和工作。其次，在工作期间，许广明等人的考勤记录均需上报丽都饭店，由丽都饭店相关人员签

字确认，说明丽都饭店对工作成果和出勤情况均有管理和要求。再次，丽都饭店保管着部分劳务外包人员的劳动合同原件或者复印件以及工资支付记录。上述事实及当事人陈述均体现丽都饭店与华澳公司、锅碗瓢盆公司更符合劳务派遣关系。”

但需要注意的是，劳务外包用工模式中，部分判决认为发包方在实际用工中并非完全不能对劳务外包人员进行用工管理。如白娟娟与威睿信息技术 (中国)有限公司上海分公司、北京外企德科人力资源服务上海有限公司劳动合同纠纷二审案（【2017】沪 02民终 2883 号）中，法院认为“白娟娟驻场服务，威睿上海公司作为服务发包单位基于产品服务质量、工作场所秩序等方面的管理需要对白娟娟行使部分指挥管理权，白娟娟在工作地点向威睿上海公司相关人员有所交代出勤情况，确属必要亦符常情”。

2. 发包方被认定与劳务外包人员存在事实劳动关系在部分案例中，发包方被直接认定为与劳务外包人员存在事实劳动关系。（1）如发包方对劳务外包人员进行直接用工管理，例如直接支付工资报

酬、直接进行工作管理，如劳务外包人员请求确认事实劳动关系，则被认定构成事实劳动关系的法律风险较高。在北京永馨尚保洁有限责任公司与张春梅劳动争议二审案（【2018】京 03民终 7089 号）中，发包方在发送给劳务外包人员的《调岗通知》上加盖发包方公章且劳务外包人员工资由发包方直接发放，法院最终认定发包方与劳务外包人员存在事实劳动关系。（2）如承包方并无劳务派遣资质或劳务外包业务范围，则被认定构成事

实劳动关系的法律风险会进一步加大。如美伦美（北京）国际贸易有限公司与

北京金派瑞斯装饰设计有限公司等劳动争议二审民事判决书（【2018】京 03

民终 9769 号）

3. 发包方难以避免参与仲裁、诉讼实践中，虽然发包方与劳务外包人员不存在劳动关系，但是如承包方与劳

务外包人员之间发生劳动争议，劳务外包人员普遍选择将发包方与承包方一起作为被申请人、被告提起劳动仲裁、诉讼。即使劳动仲裁、法院最终认定发包方与劳务外包人员无劳动关系，发包方也需承担参与仲裁、诉讼的时间成本和律师费等经济成本。我们以“外包”作为检索关键词、以“劳动争议”作为案由、以“北京

市”作为地域限制、以“2019年”作为时间限制进行案例检索，共检索到劳务外包相关劳动争议案件 55 件，其中一审案件 28 件，二审案件 27 件。上述55件案件中，发包方均作为诉讼当事人参与诉讼，涉诉率为 100%。

四、对于发包方的应对建议1. 合理确定外包业务外包业务的合理确定对于后续法律风险的高低具有极为重要的作用。如外

包业务确实属于以工作完成情况作为工作成果衡量标准，发包方无需对提供服务的人员进行直接的指挥监督及工作安排，无需更多的参与工作过程，则无被认定为与服务人员存在劳务派遣关系的风险。如外包业务不能完全以工作完成情况作为工作成果衡量标准，发包方需要直接对服务人员进行指挥监督和工作安排，则即使形式上签订的是服务外包协议，也会存在被认定为与服务人员存

在劳务派遣关系甚至事实劳动关系的法律风险。

2. 谨慎选择承包方 对于承包方的选择可遵循以下原则：（1）国家或者地方政府部门对服务资质有特别要求的，应当选用具有相

应资质的专业承包方；（2）如无特别服务资质要求，则应当优先选用经营相应外包业务的规模

较大的非人力资源类专业公司；（3）如外包业务领域无相应专业公司或者公司规模不大、管理不够规范；

则应当优先选用规模大、信誉高的经营服务外包的人力资源服务类公司。（4）承包方应当管理规范，与员工签订书面劳动合同、为员工缴纳社会

保险，并直接向劳务外包人员支付劳动报酬和福利待遇。

3. 认真审查服务合同内容 发包方在与承包方签订外包服务协议时，应当注意协议条款应当避免与劳

务派遣协议的相关条款近似甚至混淆。例如，对于服务费的支付时间、数额，应当以工作任务完成情况作为衡量标准，而不应当以承包方提供的劳务外包人员数量和劳务外包人员工作时间作为衡量标准。再如，对于劳务外包人员的日常管理，应当避免约定由发包方对劳务外包人员进行直接管理，避免直接规定劳务外包人员须直接遵守发包方的考勤制度、奖惩制度、考核制度等人力资源管理制度。

Legal Risk Analysis and Suggestions on Labour

Outsourcing

I Development Status of Labour OutsourcingThe World Bank pointed out in its 2019 World Development Report that the future labour force market would turn to a market of odd jobs instead of work. In other words, the adoption of flexible types of work will expand further in a way that may replace tradition type of employment to some extent. At this stage, based on different understanding of “flexible”, the flexible types of work in China include non-full time job which is flexible in terms of working hours, labour dispatching which is flexible in terms of form of employment, and labour outsourcing which is flexible in terms of the manner of service provided.

The outsourcing type of work, which is represented by labour outsourcing, has the following features: there are no special restriction or prohibition imposed by the law; no employment will be established between the receiving party and the outsourced workers, and their relationship shall not be governed by labour-related legislation; the outsourcing party is not required of special qualifications, except for special industries. Such type of work has been adopted by quite a lot enterprises.

Recently, Zhejiang Provincial Human Resources and Social Security Department promulgated the Guiding Opinions on the Optimization of Employment of New Types, which, taking into account the prosperity of such new types of economy as e-commerce, online car hailing, online food ordering, and delivery and logistics, allow employers to use diverse types of work. The Opinions provide that “with respect to workers working under new types of work and having no employment with enterprises in new types of industries, such enterprises may enter into civil agreements with such workers (such as labour outsourcing agreement, franchising agreement, and agreement for other types of cooperation), to define reasonably the rights and obligations of the enterprises, workers and cooperators.”

As labour outsourcing has been adopted by ever increasing enterprises, there emerged certain problems, such as loose labour outsourcing management, and taking use of labour outsourcing for avoidance of certain labour responsibilities, which has posed large legal risk to enterprises. This article will analyze the legal risks of labour outsourcing by illustrating some real cases and offer suggestions to avoid such risks.

II Difference Between Labour Outsourcing and Labour DispatchingOn 1 July 2013, the Labour Contract Law of the PRC (Revision) came in force. This Revision has set strict provisions and restriction on the adoption of labour dispatching, to avoid abuse of labour dispatching, failure to effectively protect the legitimate rights and interest of dispatched personnel, and same work with different pay, etc. Whereas the Revision sets forth new provisions on such issues as labour dispatching positions, proportion of dispatched employees, same work with same pay, and legal responsibilities, etc., numerous enterprises using dispatched employees have to be faced with increased cost and legal risk.

Based on the above, service outsourcing has attracted increasing attention. Many human resources management companies, with labour dispatching as their main business, have developed or strengthened their outsourcing service, and recommended actively enterprises with extensive use of dispatched employees to adopt service outsourcing as the optimal replacement for labour dispatching. Nowadays, quite a number of enterprises have replaced labour dispatching with labour outsourcing.

To prevent enterprises from evading from the restriction imposed by law on labour dispatching by way of adopting labour outsourcing, Article 27 of the Interim Provisions on Labour Dispatching promulgated in 2014 by the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security expressly provides that “where employers use outsourced workers in the form of labour dispatching and in the name of contracting or outsourcing, these Provisions shall apply.” However, these Provisions haven’t offered a clear definition of “labour outsourcing under the cover of labour dispatching”, and there are no unified judging opinions or standards in judicial practice on the same either.

You may find below the analysis and comparison of the two types of work.

1. Labour Dispatching

Labour dispatching refers to the type of work where the dispatching company and the dispatched employee enter into an employment contract, and, in accordance with the agreement it signed with the receiving company, the dispatching company sends the dispatched employee to the receiving company to work. In such triple relationship, the dispatching company and the dispatched employee enter into employment at law; the dispatching company and the receiving company enter into civil relationship and define their rights and obligations by concluding a labour dispatching agreement, and the receiving company and the dispatched employee enter into labour service relationship where the dispatched employee provides labour service directly to the receiving company and receives work assignment and supervision directly from the receiving company.

2. Labour Outsourcing

From the perspective of enterprise management, labour outsourcing refers to the type of work where enterprises have certain work finished by the labour force provided by external service provider, so as to lower cost, promote efficiency and enhance competitiveness. In the triple relationship, the outsourcing company and the outsourced workers enter into employment or other relationship of the same nature; the outsourcing company and the receiving company enter into civil contractual relationship; the receiving company and the outsourced workers have no direct legal relationship, i.e. the receiving company usually give work direction and requirements to the outsourced workers indirectly through the outsourcing company.

3. Basic Difference

Based on the above analysis, with respect to labour dispatching, it is the process of labour that enterprises manage; the receiving company gives direct supervision and work assignments to the dispatched employees; the dispatching company doesn’t participate in the process of labour after dispatching the employees. For labour outsourcing, it is the work result that

enterprises manage; outsourced staff provide labour to the outsourcing company; the receiving company usually doesn’t participate in the management of labour process or even need to concern about or interfere the quality or quantity of the outsourced staff, instead, it needs only to exercise its rights and perform its obligations according to the labour outsourcing agreement signed with the outsourcing company and based on the work completed.

The basic difference between labour outsourcing and labour dispatching can be summarized as follows:

Labour Outsourcing Labour Dispatching

Legal relationship with the contracting party

Contract of hired work, service contract, technology development contract, and commission contract.

Labour dispatching contract

Relationship with workers

No direct relationshipLabour service relationship

Managerial powers over outsourced staff

No direct management Direct management

Business applied Non-core business Some core businessExternal damages to be compensated by

Outsourcing company Receiving company

Risk of labour dispute to be borne by

Outsourcing companyReceiving company (jointly and severally)

Evaluation criteria for work performance

Outsourced service completed

Provision of dispatched employees according to the agreement

III Analysis on Common Legal Risks of Labour OutsourcingIn practice, if the receiving company and the outsourcing company enter into a written agreement, defining their relationship as outsourcing, and the party concluding employment contract with the outsourced workers, paying the outsourced workers’ wage, and contributing their social insurance premiums is not the receiving company, the receiving company and the outsourced workers usually will not be deemed as having entered into factual employment.

In Lv Zhongqun vs. Johnson & Johnson (China) Co., Ltd, Second Instance, Labour Dispute ([2018] Jing 02 Min Zhong No. 5439), the court held that “Lv Zhongqun and Always company entered into an employment contract,

according to which Always shall pay Lv’s salary, and Always (Beijng) shall pay for Lv’s social insurance premiums on behalf of Always. It is according to the service outsourcing agreement between Always and Johnson & Johnson that Lv sold Johnson & Johnson products and accepted Johnson & Johnson’s business supervision, therefore, Lv cannot prove that Lv had established employment relationship with Johnson & Johnson.” In Cao Jie vs. China Telecom Stock Limited Company Beijing Branch, Second Instance, Labour Dispute ([2016] Jing 01 Min Zhong No. 2093), the court believed that “Cao Jie and Xinyuan company entered into an employment contract, and during the term thereof, Cao’s salary and social insurance premiums were paid by Xinyuan company, therefore, it’s obvious that Cao’s employer is not China Telecom.”

However, it came to our attention that in some cases, the court tends to review the way the outsourcing company and the receiving company settle accounts and manage the outsourced workers, etc., based on which the court will affirm whether the receiving company and the outsourced workers had entered into labour dispatching relationship or even factual employment.

1. Labour outsourcing is affirmed as labour dispatching.

As described above, the Interim Provisions on Labour Dispatching, which though has prohibited “labour outsourcing under the cover of labour dispatching” has no clear definition of such covered outsourcing. We studied relevant cases and found that judicial authorities tend to evaluate whether a type of work is of the nature of labour dispatching or labour outsourcing in the following aspects:

(1) Payment terms

Payment terms can indirectly reflect the subject matter of a contract. Under a labour outsourcing service agreement, the subject matter should be the workload completed and payment should be made as per the completed workload. If the receiving company and the outsourcing company settled accounts as per number of staff instead of workload, it is risky that the subject matter of the contract will be deemed as labour force instead of work result, and that the labour outsourcing will thus be affirmed as labour dispatching. In Fan Wenbin vs. CNPC Great Wall Drilling Company, Bejing Zhongqi Labour Service Co., Ltd, Labour Dispute ([2017] Jing 0102 Min Chu No. 8163), the court held that “Fan Wenbin accepted work management from CNPC and CNPC and Zhongqi company settled accounts as per number of workers, which as a whole doesn’t fit the features of a service outsourcing agreement. Therefore, the court hereby affirms that despite the service outsourcing agreement between CNPC and Zhongqi, the relationship among the three parties is labour dispatching in nature.”

(2) Way of staff management

If the receiving company conducts direct management over the outsourced workers, such as management and requirement on both the work result and attendance of the outsourced workers, it is risky that the labour outsourcing will be affirmed as labour dispatching if the dispatched workers request so, even if the outsourced workers and the outsourcing company have entered into written employment contracts. In Lidu Hotel Co., Ltd. vs. Xu Guangming, Second Instance, Labour Dispute ([2014] San Zhong Min Zhong Zi No. 15106), the court held that “firstly, Lidu Hotel, Huaao company and Guowanpiaopen company signed a Staff Agreement, and Xu, among others, got interviewed by and provided work to Lidu Hotel directly. Secondly, Xu’s attendance records needed to be submitted to Lidu Hotel and signed by Lidu Hotel’s staff, which shows that Lidu Hotel had requirements and management over both the work result and the attendance of Xu. Lastly, Lidu Hotel kept the original or duplicate employment contracts and wage payment records of certain outsourced staff. These above facts and statement of the parties all indicate that the triple relationship between Lidu Hotel, Huaao company and Guowanpiaopen company is more of the nature of labour dispatching than of labour outsourcing.”

It should be noted that under labour outsourcing, some courts believe that the receiving company may have work management over the outsourced staff to some extent. In Bai Juanjuan vs. VMware Information Technology (China) Co., Ltd. Shanghai Branch and Beijing Fesco Adecco Human Resources Service Shanghai Co., Ltd, Second Instance, Labour Dispute ([2017] Hu 02 Min Zhong No. 2883), the court held that “Bai Juanjuan provided on-site work. It makes sense that VMware Shanghai, as service receiving company, exercised certain managerial powers on Bai and required Bai to report her attendance at the work place to the staff of VMware out of the need for product and service quality control and work discipline.”

2. The receiving company and the outsourced workers are affirmed to have factual employment relationship.

In some cases, the receiving company and the outsourced workers are directly affirmed to have factual employment relationship.

(1) If the receiving company conducts direct labour management on the outsourced workers, such as direct payment of remuneration and direct work management, and if the outsourced workers request to confirm the existence of factual employment relationship with the receiving company, the risk that the factual employment relationship will be affirmed is relatively high. In Beijing Yongshangxin Cleaning Service Co., Ltd. vs. Zhang Chunmei, Second Instance, Labour Dispute ([2018] Jing 03 Min Zhong No. 7089), the receiving company chopped its company seal on the Position Adjustment Notice it sent to the outsourced worker, and paid the salary of such work directly; the court affirmed the factual employment between the receiving company and the

outsourced worker.

(2) If the receiving company hasn’t obtained labour dispatching qualification or didn’t include labour outsourcing in its business scope, the risk of factual employment will further expand. See Meilunmei (Beijing) International Trade Co., Ltd. vs. Beijing Jinpairuisi Decoration Design Co., Ltd, etc., Second Instance, Labour Dispute ([2018] Jing 03 Min Zhong No. 9769).

3. It is inevitable that the receiving company gets involved in arbitration and litigation.

In practice, although the receiving company concluded no employment with the outsourced staff, in case of labour dispute between the outsourcing company and the outsourced staff, the outsourced staff will commonly choose to initiate labour arbitration and litigation against both the outsourcing company and the receiving company. Even if ultimately the labour arbitration commission and court affirms that there is no employment relationship between the receiving company and the outsourced staff, the receiving company has to bear the cost of time and attorney’s fee.

We have searched relevant cases by using the key word “outsourcing” with the cause of action “labour dispute” in the year “2019” within the territory of “Beijing” and got 55 target labour disputes regarding labour outsourcing. Among the 55 labour disputes, 28 are of the first instance, and 27 of the second. In all such 55 labour disputes, the receiving company participated in the litigation as a litigant.

IV Suggestions for the Receiving Company

1. Adopt labour outsourcing service reasonably

It is essential that labour outsourcing is adopted reasonably. If the outsourced work is indeed evaluated as per the work completed, and the receiving company doesn’t need to give direct direction, supervision or work assignment to the outsourced workers, or even doesn’t need to participate much in the outsourced work, there should be no risk that the receiving company and the outsourced workers be affirmed to have entered labour dispatching relationship. If the outsourced work is not evaluated solely based on the work completed, and the receiving company has to give direct direction, supervision and work assignment to the outsourced workers, then, even if the receiving company has signed a service outsourcing agreement with the outsourcing company, there is risk that the court will affirm the labour dispatching relationship, or even worse, the factual employment, between the receiving company and the outsourced workers.

2. Select outsourcing company cautiously

When selecting outsourcing company, the following principles are suggested to be taken into account:

(1) In case of national or local special qualification required, select from the outsourcing companies with such qualification;

(2) In case of no such qualification requirements, select from the professional non-human-resources companies of relatively large scale engaging in related outsourcing business;

(3) If no such professional company or no company of large scale or with proper management, select from the human resources service companies of large scale and good reputation which engage in service outsourcing; and

(4) The outsourcing company should have good internal management, conclude written employment contract with the employees, pay for the employees’ social insurance premiums, and directly pay the outsourced workers labour remuneration and benefits.

3. Review the service contract carefully

In the signing of a service outsourcing agreement, the receiving company should try to avoid leaving any clause in the agreement that seems similar to or may be misunderstood as labour dispatching. For example, in payment term clauses, the date and amount of payment should be set as per the work completed, instead of the quantity and working hours of outsourced workers; in clauses regarding the daily management of outsourced workers, clauses providing that the receiving company will directly manage outsourced workers or that the outsourced workers should abide by the human resources administration rules of the receiving company (such as attendance, reward and punishment, and performance evaluation rules) should be avoided.

苏 文安杰律师事务所 律师

刘 正 赫安杰律师事务所 合伙人