Subordination Doctrine in Chinese Courts

In Chinese labour law, the subordination doctrine (从属性理论) is one of the most important judicial tools for determining whether a relationship is genuinely an employment/labour relationship or merely a civil, commercial, contracting, cooperation, agency, or service relationship.

Chinese courts increasingly look beyond the label given to the contract and examine the actual relationship between the parties. The modern approach is especially important for platform workers, delivery riders, drivers, livestreamers, outsourced workers, and persons formally registered as individual businesses.

The Supreme People's Court has described “dominant/control-based labour management” (支配性劳动管理) as the essential characteristic of a labour relationship. The analysis generally examines three forms of subordination:

Personal subordination (人格从属性)

Economic subordination (经济从属性)

Organisational subordination (组织从属性)

The court normally evaluates their existence and degree together, rather than applying an automatic checklist. (Supreme People's Court)

1. Meaning of the Subordination Doctrine

Traditional civil law generally assumes that two contracting parties are legally equal and negotiate their rights and obligations voluntarily.

Employment is different.

An employee normally:

works under another party's direction;

follows workplace rules;

receives remuneration;

performs work assigned by the employer;

is subject to supervision and discipline;

becomes part of the employer's business organisation; and

depends, to some degree, upon the employer for work and income.

This relationship of control and dependence is what the subordination doctrine attempts to capture.

Thus, Chinese courts do not necessarily ask:

“What does the contract call the relationship?”

They increasingly ask:

“How did the relationship actually operate in practice?”

This is particularly important where an employer calls an arrangement a “cooperation agreement,” “service agreement,” “outsourcing agreement,” “contracting agreement,” or “individual business cooperation agreement” while exercising substantial control over the worker.

The Supreme People's Court has expressly stated that courts should determine the relationship according to actual employment/use of labour (用工事实) and consider the three dimensions of subordination. (Supreme People's Court)

2. Three Dimensions of Subordination

A. Personal Subordination — 人格从属性

Personal subordination concerns the degree to which the worker is subject to the employer's control and direction in performing the work.

Typical indicators include:

employer's work instructions;

attendance requirements;

fixed working hours;

workplace requirements;

disciplinary rules;

performance assessment;

punishment for refusing work;

requirement to accept assigned tasks;

supervision of the labour process;

employer-created algorithms or platform rules;

restrictions on how work is performed.

The Supreme People's Court has specifically indicated that, in platform employment, courts should examine whether the enterprise:

establishes work rules;

imposes labour discipline;

establishes rewards and penalties;

controls the labour process through algorithms;

requires workers to follow platform instructions; and

allows workers to independently determine their working hours and workload. (Supreme People's Court)

Example

Suppose a delivery rider is formally described as an “independent contractor.”

But the company:

determines when the rider must report;

assigns orders;

penalises refusal;

monitors performance;

imposes attendance requirements; and

determines the remuneration formula.

These circumstances point strongly toward personal subordination, notwithstanding the contractual label.

3. Economic Subordination — 经济从属性

Economic subordination concerns the worker's economic dependence upon the enterprise.

Courts may consider:

who controls the means of production;

who determines the remuneration;

whether the worker can negotiate prices;

whether the worker bears commercial risk;

whether the worker has independent customers;

whether the work constitutes an important source of income;

who controls relevant data and production resources.

The Supreme People's Court has specifically identified control over important production resources and data, the ability to negotiate service prices, and the importance of platform remuneration to the worker's income as relevant factors. (Supreme People's Court)

Important qualification

Economic dependence alone does not automatically establish employment.

For example, a freelancer may depend heavily upon one client economically but remain an independent contractor if the parties otherwise operate as legally equal commercial actors.

Therefore, Chinese courts generally consider economic subordination together with personal and organisational subordination.

4. Organisational Subordination — 组织从属性

Organisational subordination asks whether the worker has been integrated into the employer's organisational structure.

Relevant questions include:

Is the worker part of the employer's ordinary workforce?

Does the worker perform an integral part of the employer's business?

Does the worker work under the employer's organisational system?

Does the worker represent the enterprise externally?

Is the work continuous?

Does the enterprise incorporate the worker into its operational structure?

This dimension is particularly useful in distinguishing:

employee
from
independent contractor/business partner.

The Supreme People's Court has explained that organisational subordination may exist where the worker is incorporated into the enterprise's organisational system and becomes an organic part of its production and business activities. (Supreme People's Court)

5. The Most Important Modern Chinese Approach: “Subordination + Elements”

Chinese judicial practice has increasingly adopted what can be described as a:

“Subordination + elements” approach

The Supreme People's Court and Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security have stated that labour-relationship disputes should be examined according to the actual employment facts, with comprehensive consideration of personal, economic and organisational subordination. (Supreme People's Court)

This is particularly important in new forms of employment.

The court therefore does not necessarily require the traditional factory model of:

fixed workplace + fixed hours + supervisor standing beside employee.

Instead, control can now be exercised through:

algorithms;

mobile applications;

electronic attendance;

digital performance scoring;

platform rules;

automated penalties;

order-allocation systems;

platform remuneration systems.

This represents a major development of the traditional subordination doctrine.

6. Case Law

Case 1: Guiding Case No. 179 — Nie Meilan v. Beijing Lin's Brothers Culture Co., Ltd.

This is one of the clearest Supreme People's Court authorities demonstrating the importance of personal and economic subordination.

Facts

Nie Meilan entered into an agreement with the company under which she was described in connection with a business/cooperation arrangement.

The company argued, in substance, that the relationship was not an employment relationship.

However, in actual performance:

she was appointed as a project manager;

she received remuneration including a basic salary;

her remuneration was connected with attendance;

she regularly reported matters to the company;

she reported employee attendance;

she reported allocation of funds;

she reported expenses;

she reported sales;

she reported work plans; and

she applied for working funds.

Court's reasoning

The Supreme People's Court concluded that the actual relationship demonstrated both personal and economic subordination.

Importantly, the court did not simply rely on the title of the agreement.

It examined the substance and performance of the relationship.

The Court also held that the agreement could function as a written labour contract even though it did not contain all the conventional clauses of a formal labour contract. (Supreme People's Court)

Principle

A contract described as a “cooperation” arrangement can nevertheless constitute an employment relationship when the actual relationship demonstrates subordination.

This is highly significant for employees seeking to prove that a supposedly commercial arrangement is actually employment.

7. Case 2: Sheng Mouhuan v. Jiangsu Network Technology Co., Ltd.

This is one of the most important modern cases concerning platform workers.

The case was subsequently highlighted by the Supreme People's Court as a guiding example in new-employment-form disputes.

Facts

The worker was an online food-delivery rider.

The company required him to register as an individual business household (个体工商户) and subsequently enter into contracting/cooperation arrangements.

The formal documentation therefore attempted to make the relationship appear commercial rather than employment-based.

What happened in practice?

The court found substantial control:

the rider needed station authorisation to register on the platform;

he received orders through the company's system;

he could not freely refuse platform-assigned orders;

special circumstances required application for order reassignment;

the company established attendance rules;

the company managed his daily work;

the company controlled the remuneration rules;

the company determined the amount actually paid.

The court therefore found strong:

personal subordination + economic subordination + organisational subordination.

Decision

The Suzhou Huqiu District People's Court held that a labour relationship existed between the rider and the network company.

The Supreme People's Court later identified this as an example of “dominant labour management” (支配性劳动管理). (Supreme People's Court)

Importance

This case establishes a particularly important proposition:

Registration as an individual business does not, by itself, prevent the existence of a labour relationship.

The actual control exercised by the enterprise remains decisive.

8. Case 3: Langxi Service Outsourcing Co. Ltd. v. Xu

This is Guiding Case No. 237 and is especially important for the modern doctrine.

Central issue

The worker had entered into agreements described as contracting/cooperation arrangements.

The question was whether the formal contractual arrangement prevented recognition of an employment relationship.

Supreme People's Court's approach

The Court held that the existence of a labour relationship should be determined by examining the actual use of labour and comprehensively considering:

personal subordination;

economic subordination;

organisational subordination.

The Court expressly stated that the essential characteristic of a labour relationship is dominant labour management.

It also identified concrete factors such as:

the worker's autonomy over working time;

autonomy over workload;

degree of control over the labour process;

obligation to comply with work rules;

algorithmic rules;

labour discipline;

rewards and penalties;

continuity of work; and

ability to determine or change transaction prices. (Gongbao)

Importance

This case is arguably one of the strongest authorities for explaining the Chinese subordination test in a systematic manner.

It shows that subordination is not an abstract philosophical concept; it is evaluated through concrete facts.

9. Case 4: Network Anchor / Livestreamer Case — Wang v. Beijing Media Company

The Supreme People's Court has also demonstrated that not every platform relationship is employment.

In this case, a livestreamer sought recognition of an employment relationship with a media company.

Facts

The company had certain contractual requirements concerning:

attendance at specified locations;

completion of agreed activities; and

performance obligations.

But the court found that the relationship did not amount to dominant labour management.

Important factors included:

the worker did not have to follow the company's general work rules and labour discipline;

the worker had substantial bargaining power regarding revenue distribution;

the parties negotiated the revenue-sharing arrangement;

the purpose of the contract involved cultivation and promotion of the livestreamer's personal brand;

the relationship operated more like an agency/business arrangement.

Decision

The courts concluded that the relationship did not display the required degree of personal, economic and organisational subordination.

Therefore, no labour relationship was established. (Supreme People's Court)

Importance

This case is equally important because it demonstrates that:

The subordination doctrine protects against both false negatives and false positives.

Not every worker who receives instructions from a company is automatically an employee.

The question is the degree and nature of control.

10. Case 5: Qin Mudan v. Beijing Automobile Company

Another Supreme People's Court example involves a designated-driver/platform driver.

The question was whether the platform operator and driver had established a labour relationship.

The court applied the same modern framework:

dominant labour management + personal subordination + economic subordination + organisational subordination.

The case demonstrates that the fact that work is mediated through a platform does not eliminate the possibility of an employment relationship. At the same time, courts must examine the actual degree of control rather than automatically classify every platform worker as an employee. (Supreme People's Court)

11. Case 6: Minor Professional Athlete Case

Chinese courts have also applied subordination principles outside ordinary platform employment.

In a case concerning a professional athlete who was under sixteen, the court examined the nature of the agreement and its actual performance.

The court concluded that the relationship possessed characteristics of:

organisation;

subordination; and

remuneration.

The Supreme People's Court stated that the existence of a labour relationship should not be determined simply from the external form of the contract. Instead, the court should examine the actual labour-management relationship and characteristics of subordination. (Supreme People's Court)

Importance

This illustrates that the doctrine is not limited to:

factory workers;

office workers; or

platform riders.

It can apply wherever the substance of the relationship demonstrates employment characteristics.

12. Case 7: Fake Outsourcing — Real Employment

Chinese courts have increasingly confronted the practice known as:

“假外包、真用工” — “fake outsourcing, real employment.”

The formal structure may look like:

Company A → Outsourcing company → Worker

But the actual situation may be:

Company A → directly controls worker

For example, the alleged outsourcing arrangement may nevertheless involve:

identical work to ordinary employees;

same work location;

same work schedule;

same supervision;

same production system;

same organisational structure.

The Supreme People's Court has emphasised that courts should not simply rely upon outsourcing or cooperation documents where the factual circumstances demonstrate actual labour management. (Supreme People's Court)

This is essentially an anti-avoidance function of the subordination doctrine.

13. Why Chinese Courts Use Subordination

The doctrine serves several purposes.

First — Prevent contractual evasion

An enterprise should not ordinarily be able to escape labour-law obligations merely by changing the title of the contract.

For example:

“Employment Agreement”

can be changed to:

“Cooperation Agreement”

without necessarily changing the underlying relationship.

The court therefore looks at substance.

Second — Protect vulnerable workers

The worker may have little bargaining power when signing a standard-form agreement.

A person can technically sign a “business cooperation agreement” while practically being subject to:

fixed schedules;

company instructions;

disciplinary sanctions;

performance monitoring;

remuneration rules.

Subordination doctrine allows courts to examine that reality.

Third — Adapt labour law to digital platforms

Traditional labour law assumed direct human supervision.

Modern platform enterprises may exercise control through algorithms.

The Supreme People's Court expressly recognises algorithmic rules and platform systems as potentially relevant forms of labour management. (Supreme People's Court)

14. Contractual Label vs. Actual Relationship

A useful way to understand Chinese jurisprudence is:

Therefore:

Form is evidence, but form is not necessarily decisive.

The courts increasingly follow a substance-over-form approach where the facts demonstrate genuine labour management. (Supreme People's Court)

15. Degree of Subordination Is Important

Chinese courts do not generally treat subordination as an all-or-nothing concept.

Instead, they examine:

是否存在及强弱 — whether it exists and how strong it is.

In other words:

Existence + intensity + combination of factors

are relevant.

For example:

Strong subordination

fixed hours;

compulsory attendance;

mandatory orders;

disciplinary penalties;

company-controlled remuneration;

company-controlled work process;

worker integrated into company operations.

→ Strong case for labour relationship.

Weak subordination

worker chooses working hours;

worker chooses customers;

worker negotiates prices;

worker bears business risk;

worker can work for multiple clients;

worker independently organises performance.

→ Stronger case for independent civil/commercial relationship.

This is particularly clear in the Supreme People's Court's treatment of the delivery rider and livestreamer cases. (Supreme People's Court)

16. Subordination and the Burden of Proof

In litigation, the employee should not simply argue:

“I worked for the company, therefore I was an employee.”

The stronger approach is to establish factual indicators of subordination.

Useful evidence includes:

attendance records;

work schedules;

supervisor instructions;

disciplinary notices;

salary records;

platform screenshots;

algorithmic rules;

performance scores;

penalty records;

work assignments;

company ID;

company e-mails;

internal communications;

training records;

workplace photographs;

evidence of company-controlled equipment;

evidence showing integration into the business.

Once the worker establishes a credible factual foundation, evidence concerning matters primarily controlled by the enterprise becomes particularly important.

17. Application to an Employee's Claim

If an employee wants to rely upon the Chinese subordination doctrine, the argument can be structured as follows:

Step 1 — Establish actual work

Show:

“I performed work for this enterprise.”

Step 2 — Establish personal subordination

Show:

“The enterprise controlled how I performed the work.”

Step 3 — Establish economic subordination

Show:

“My remuneration and ability to earn depended substantially upon the enterprise.”

Step 4 — Establish organisational subordination

Show:

“I was integrated into the enterprise's organisational and business system.”

Step 5 — Deal with the contract label

If the employer says:

“This was outsourcing/cooperation/contracting.”

respond:

“The contractual label does not correspond with the actual manner in which the work was performed.”

Step 6 — Demonstrate cumulative effect

The strongest argument is not:

“There was one element of control.”

It is:

“The combined effect of personal, economic and organisational subordination demonstrates dominant labour management.”

That is the central logic of modern Chinese judicial practice.

18. Comparison of the Major Cases

The cases collectively demonstrate that Chinese courts are moving away from purely formal contractual classification toward a fact-intensive examination of labour management and subordination. (Supreme People's Court)

19. Overall Legal Principle

The modern Chinese position can be summarised in the following formula:

Actual labour relationship = actual use of labour + dominant labour management + comprehensive assessment of personal, economic and organisational subordination.

The existence of a written “cooperation,” “outsourcing,” “service,” or “contracting” agreement does not necessarily defeat an employment claim.

Conversely, economic dependence or the receipt of instructions alone does not automatically create an employment relationship.

The decisive inquiry is the nature, intensity and cumulative effect of the control and dependence existing between the parties.

The Supreme People's Court's recent guidance makes this particularly clear for new forms of employment: courts should consider workers' autonomy over time and workload, control over the labour process, work rules and algorithms, disciplinary mechanisms, continuity, pricing power, access to production resources, income dependence, and integration into the enterprise's organisation. (Supreme People's Court)

Conclusion

The subordination doctrine in Chinese courts is essentially a functional test for distinguishing employment from independent commercial relationships.

Its three principal dimensions are:

1. Personal subordination — Does the enterprise control the worker?

2. Economic subordination — Does the worker economically depend upon the enterprise?

3. Organisational subordination — Is the worker integrated into the enterprise's organisation?

The most significant modern development is the concept of “dominant labour management” (支配性劳动管理). It allows Chinese courts to identify disguised employment even where the parties have deliberately used commercial terminology or created formal structures such as outsourcing, cooperation agreements, or individual-business registration. At the same time, cases such as the livestreamer dispute show that courts will not automatically convert every commercial relationship into employment where genuine autonomy and equal bargaining exist. (Supreme People's Court)

This makes the doctrine particularly useful for analysing platform workers, gig workers, outsourced employees, “independent contractors,” individual business operators, and disguised employment relationships in contemporary Chinese labour law.