- Article 27 of the Interim Provisions on Labour Dispatch treats workers used in the form of dispatch under the name of contracting or outsourcing as dispatched workers, and applies the dispatch rules to them.
《劳务派遣暂行规定》第27条规定，用人单位以承揽、外包等名义、按劳务派遣用工形式使用劳动者的，按照该规定处理。- Once an outsourcing arrangement is pierced, the client is pulled back under the very “three-nature” post restriction and 10% headcount cap it was trying to avoid.
外包一旦被穿透，发包方将重新落入其试图规避的三性岗位限制与10%用工比例上限。- Chinese courts apply substantive review and ask one question first: does the client exercise dominant labour management over the workers?
中国法院坚持实质审查原则，首要审查发包方是否对劳动者实施支配性劳动管理。- At its 16 July 2026 briefing on disguised-employment disputes, the Fangshan District People’s Court of Beijing reported that confirming an employment relationship, or holding the enterprise liable as employer, is the common outcome.
北京市房山区人民法院2026年7月16日涉隐蔽用工类劳动争议通报指出，最终确认劳动关系或判令企业承担用工主体责任的情形较为普遍。- Representative offices of foreign enterprises are exempt from the three-nature and 10% limits under Article 25; WFOEs and joint ventures are not.
依第25条，外国企业常驻代表机构使用被派遣劳动者不受三性岗位与10%比例限制；外商独资企业与合资企业并无此项豁免。- Piercing carries joint and several liability, plus fines of RMB 5,000 to 10,000 per worker where a breach is not remedied within the ordered period.
穿透后产生连带赔偿责任，逾期不改正的还将按每人5000元以上1万元以下的标准处以罚款。- The cure lies in substance, not the title: price by deliverable, manage the task rather than the person, and let the contractor supply tools, discipline and payroll.
整改的关键在实质而非名称：按成果计价、”对事不对人”地行使管理权、由承包方配置生产资料并独立承担用工义务。
Outsourcing or dispatch? The “fake outsourcing, real dispatch” trap for foreign-invested employers in China | 外包还是派遣？外资企业在华用工的”假外包、真派遣”穿透风险
Overview: the cap that pushes employers into outsourcing
A foreign-invested enterprise (FIE) needing flexible headcount meets two hard limits at once. Article 3 of the *Interim Provisions on Labour Dispatch* (MOHRSS Order No. 22, effective 1 March 2014) confines dispatched workers to temporary, auxiliary or substitute posts; Article 4 caps them at 10% of total headcount, counting direct-contract employees plus dispatched workers.
The response is predictable: rather than shrink the dispatched population, rename it. The dispatch agreement becomes a “service outsourcing” agreement, the workers stay at the same desks under the same supervisors, and the 10% calculation appears to reset to zero. That is what Article 27 exists to defeat.
Article 27: the anti-circumvention clause
Article 27 is one sentence: where an employing entity uses workers in the form of labour dispatch under the name of contracting, outsourcing or the like, the matter shall be handled in accordance with these Provisions.
The consequence is total. A relabelled arrangement does not merely lose its outsourcing character; it falls under the entire dispatch regime — three-nature posts, the 10% cap, the licence requirement, equal pay for equal work, the thirteen mandatory terms of Article 7, the three return grounds of Article 12, and joint liability under Article 92 of the *Labour Contract Law*. An employer that changed the label to escape one rule inherits all of them, years later, with no records built to satisfy them.
Six dimensions that separate outsourcing from dispatch
The *Shanxi Province Guidelines on Labour Dispatch* (April 2026) draw the distinction across six dimensions — a useful audit grid, because it tracks what an inspector or judge tests.
| Dimension | Labour dispatch | Genuine service outsourcing |
|---|---|---|
| Supplier qualification | Dispatch Operation Licence required | No special licence |
| Post restriction | Temporary, auxiliary or substitute only | None |
| Parties | Three: agency, client, worker | Two: principal and contractor |
| Management authority | Client manages the workers directly | Principal does not manage them |
| Pricing | By headcount and working time | By completion of the work |
| Governing law | Labour contract legislation | The Civil Code |
Where the contractor’s workers take instructions from the principal, work to the principal’s arrangements, or provide labour in the principal’s name, the Guidelines warn the arrangement may be treated as dispatch, with liability allocated accordingly.
Substantive review: the 2026 cases
On 16 July 2026 the Fangshan District People’s Court of Beijing briefed the press on model disguised-employment disputes. Spokesperson Ma Yanjia described the pattern: enterprises sign agreements under different names and build multi-layered engagement chains, packaging what is properly an employment relationship as contracting, outsourcing or cooperation. The court applies a substantive review principle, asking whether the enterprise exercises dominant labour management over the worker. Confirming an employment relationship, or imposing employer liability, was the common outcome.
“We manage them, the outsourcer pays them.” A courier company’s outsourcing fee comprised commission, a management service fee, taxes and rebates — with the service fee set at zero. Its station manager ran attendance in a WeChat group, pay flowed from the courier company’s own funds, and the app showed riders as its staff. The consideration was implausibly low and the structure suggested avoidance of employment status and transfer of commercial risk: the employment relationship lay with the courier company.
A contracting agreement over real employment. Another agreement cast riders as individual business operators paid by a platform — yet the company set shifts, controlled order volume and could assign orders individually. However an agreement is dressed, where the substance matches employment, a de facto relationship is recognised.
Outsourcing in name, dispatch in fact. Company A employed a worker and placed him in sales at Company B under a “labour outsourcing cooperation agreement” by which A would second personnel to B. He worked on B’s premises under B’s direction, with pay and benefits confirmed, settled and paid by B — a textbook “fake outsourcing, real dispatch”. After B returned him, A terminated him for serious misconduct; because B could not evidence that the return followed the agreed procedure, A paid damages for unlawful termination. After a return, the agency must independently verify a statutory ground for termination.
Why FIEs sit closer to the line
Article 25 grants an exemption most FIEs do not have. Representative offices of foreign enterprises and of foreign financial institutions — and employers of international seafarers — are not subject to the three-nature restriction or the dispatch ratio. That is structural, not a privilege: an RO cannot employ Chinese staff directly and can only staff itself through dispatch. WFOEs and joint ventures get nothing of the kind. Fully bound by Articles 3 and 4, they are the ones reaching for outsourcing — and the ones exposed to piercing.
Multi-city footprints add a second trap: under Articles 18 and 19, cross-region dispatch requires social insurance enrolment in the client’s locality, and where the agency has no branch there, the client enrols and pays on its behalf.
What piercing costs
Article 92 of the *Labour Contract Law* requires rectification, with a fine of RMB 5,000 to 10,000 per worker if it is not made in time, and Article 92(2) imposes joint and several liability on agency and client for loss caused to a dispatched worker; Shanxi treats them as co-parties in dispatch disputes. Article 22 of the Interim Provisions separately allows rectification orders and warnings where auxiliary posts were set without the democratic procedure — staff or employee-congress discussion, equal consultation with the union, and internal publication. Because Article 57 makes dispatch a licensed business, an “outsourcer” usually holds no licence, so piercing converts the arrangement into unlicensed dispatch. Port operators bound by both red lines are already converting non-compliant dispatch into structured outsourcing.
Rebuilding the arrangement so it survives review
- From people to work product. Contract for a defined deliverable, not the labour of named individuals; drop “project personnel” for “service team”.
- Manage the task, not the person. Remove the principal’s attendance, appraisal and disciplinary power over individuals; keep work rules in the contractor’s system; equipment should be the contractor’s.
- Pay for outcomes. Delete per-head pricing and line items for management fees, social insurance, salary and income tax; tie milestones to delivery and acceptance, not to “payable monthly”.
- Harden the liability allocation. The contractor alone bears employment contracting, wages, social insurance and work-injury liability; the principal accepts only the work product, against written confirmation that those obligations have been met.
What to do next
- Map the population. Count direct employees, dispatched workers and every outsourced head on your premises. If that group were pierced tomorrow, would you be within 10%, and would the posts be temporary, auxiliary or substitute?
- Test each supplier against the six dimensions. Pricing basis and management authority decide most cases.
- Do supplier due diligence. Verify the Dispatch Operation Licence and its validity — licensing authorities must publish the licensed-agency list and any change, revocation or cancellation — and the RMB 2 million minimum registered capital under Article 7 of the *Administrative Licensing Measures for Labour Dispatch* (MOHRSS Order No. 19, effective 1 July 2013). Never accept a human resources service licence as a substitute.
- Audit the evidence trail, not just the contract. Where the paper says outsourcing and the group chat says supervision, the group chat wins.
- Fix the democratic procedure for auxiliary posts, and never assume a group RO’s Article 25 exemption travels to the WFOE.
- Plan the return route in advance. Returns are limited to the three Article 12 grounds, and workers protected by Article 42 of the *Labour Contract Law* cannot be returned on objective-change or redundancy grounds before the dispatch term expires.
外包还是派遣？外资企业在华用工的”假外包、真派遣”穿透风险
概览：把雇主推向外包的比例上限
需要弹性用工的外商投资企业会同时撞上两道硬约束。《劳务派遣暂行规定》（人力资源和社会保障部令第22号，2014年3月1日施行）第3条规定，用工单位只能在临时性、辅助性或者替代性岗位上使用被派遣劳动者；第4条规定被派遣劳动者数量不得超过用工总量的10%，用工总量为订立劳动合同人数与使用的被派遣劳动者人数之和。
企业的反应可以预见：不是压减派遣人数，而是改换名称。派遣协议改签为”服务外包”协议，劳动者仍在原岗位、由原主管指挥，10%的计算似乎归零。第27条正是为了打掉这一操作而设。
第27条：反规避条款
第27条只有一句话：用人单位以承揽、外包等名义，按劳务派遣用工形式使用劳动者的，按照本规定处理。
后果是整体性的。被重新贴标签的安排不只是失去外包属性，而是整体落入派遣规则体系——三性岗位、10%比例、供应商许可、同工同酬、第7条协议13项必备条款、第12条仅有的三种退回情形，以及《劳动合同法》第92条的连带责任。为规避一条规则而改名的雇主，往往在数年后一次性承受全部规则，且手中没有任何为满足这些规则而准备的材料。
区分外包与派遣的六个维度
2026年4月印发的《山西省劳务派遣用工指引》从六个维度系统区分二者，可直接用作自查表，因为它对应的正是监察人员或法官实际审查的内容。
| 维度 | 劳务派遣 | 真实的服务外包 |
|---|---|---|
| 主体资质 | 须取得《劳务派遣经营许可证》 | 无特殊资质要求 |
| 岗位限制 | 仅限临时性、辅助性、替代性岗位 | 无岗位限定 |
| 法律关系 | 三方：派遣单位、用工单位、劳动者 | 两方：发包方与承包方 |
| 管理权限 | 用工单位直接管理劳动者 | 发包方不管理承包方员工 |
| 费用结算 | 按人数与工作时间结算 | 按业务完成情况结算 |
| 法律适用 | 劳动合同相关法律法规 | 《民法典》 |
指引提示：承包单位劳动者若接受发包企业指挥管理、按发包企业安排提供劳动，或以发包企业名义提供劳动，该安排可能被认定为劳务派遣，并据此确定发包单位与外包单位的法律责任。
实质审查：2026年的案例
2026年7月16日，北京市房山区人民法院召开涉隐蔽用工类劳动争议纠纷典型案例新闻通报会。新闻发言人马艳佳指出的模式是：企业通过签订不同名目的协议，设计多层用工链条，将本应属于劳动关系的情况包装成承揽、外包、合作等其他法律关系。法院坚持实质审查原则，重点审查企业是否对劳动者实施支配性劳动管理。从审理结果看，最终确认存在劳动关系或判决企业承担用工主体责任的情形较为普遍。
“自己管人、外包发钱”。 某快递公司的外包费用由佣金、管理服务费、税费及返费构成，其中管理服务费为0。站长在微信群中监督骑手考勤，报酬资金来自快递公司，APP显示骑手为该公司员工。合同对价明显偏低，结构上存在规避劳动关系、转嫁商业风险之嫌，法院认定劳动关系存在于快递公司与劳动者之间。
以承揽合同行用工之实。 另一份协议约定骑手作为个体工商户承揽配送、由第三方平台付酬，但公司对其排班、控制接单量并可单独派单。即便披上承揽外衣，只要用工实质符合劳动关系，即认定为事实劳动关系。
名为外包实为派遣。 甲公司与劳动者签订劳动合同并安排其至乙公司任销售，甲乙之间的《劳务外包合作协议》约定由甲向乙派驻人员。该劳动者在乙公司场所、受乙公司管理指挥，工资福利由乙公司确认、结算和支付——属典型的“假外包、真派遣”。乙公司退回后，甲公司径行以严重违纪解除劳动合同；因乙公司未能提交充分证据证明退回符合约定的处罚程序，甲公司被判支付违法解除劳动关系赔偿金。退回之后，派遣单位须独立审查是否符合法定解除情形，不能被动接受用工单位的退回决定。
外资企业为何更接近红线
第25条给予的豁免，多数外资企业并不享有。 外国企业常驻代表机构、外国金融机构驻华代表机构，以及以派遣形式使用国际远洋海员的船员用人单位，不受三性岗位和劳务派遣用工比例的限制。这是制度配套而非优惠：代表处本身不能直接与中国员工建立劳动关系，只能通过派遣用工。外商独资企业与合资企业则完全没有该项豁免，须完整遵守第3条与第4条——这正是不少外资雇主转向”外包”的动因，也正是其穿透风险的来源。
多城市布点还带来第二重风险。依第18、19条，跨地区派遣应在用工单位所在地参加社会保险；派遣单位在当地未设分支机构的，由用工单位代为办理参保、缴费。
被穿透的代价
《劳动合同法》第92条规定责令改正，逾期不改的按每人5000元以上1万元以下处以罚款；第92条第2款规定，用工单位给被派遣劳动者造成损害的，派遣单位与用工单位承担连带赔偿责任，山西的指引亦明确二者在派遣争议中为共同当事人。《劳务派遣暂行规定》第22条另行规定，辅助性岗位未经民主程序（职工代表大会或全体职工讨论、与工会或职工代表平等协商、并在单位内公示）确定的，责令改正、给予警告。由于《劳动合同法》第57条将劳务派遣设为许可经营事项，被当作”外包方”引入的供应商通常并无该许可，穿透之后即转化为无证派遣。受双重红线约束的港口企业已开始将违规派遣转为规范化服务外包。
如何重构安排以经得起审查
- 从”对人”到”对事”。 约定特定的交付成果而非特定劳动者的劳务；避免”项目人员”等称谓，改用”服务团队””项目小组”。
- 管理权”对事不对人”。 删除发包方对劳动者个人的考勤、考核与处分条款；劳动纪律与考核标准独立于发包方制度体系；工作服装、电脑设备等生产资料原则上由承包方配置。
- 按成果付费。 删除按人头计价，以及管理费、社保公积金、薪资个税等人身性支出明细；付款节点与交付、验收挂钩，删除”按月支付”等按时间计费规则。
- 强化责任边界。 由承包方独立承担劳动合同签订、工资支付、社保缴纳与工伤赔偿等全部法定义务；发包方仅对成果验收，并可要求承包方提供已履行上述义务的书面确认作为验收前提。
下一步建议
- 先做人数盘点。 统计直接雇员、被派遣劳动者以及在本单位场所工作的全部外包人员。若外包人员明日被穿透，是否仍在10%以内？相关岗位是否属于三性？
- 用六个维度逐一检验供应商。 费用结算方式与管理权限是决定多数案件的两项。
- 做好供应商尽调。 核验《劳务派遣经营许可证》的真实性与有效期（许可机关应公示获证单位名单及变更、撤销、注销情况），并核对《劳务派遣行政许可实施办法》（人社部令第19号，2013年7月1日施行）第7条要求的注册资本不少于人民币200万元。切勿以”人力资源服务许可”替代劳务派遣经营许可。
- 审查证据链，而不只是合同。 当书面文件写着外包、微信群里却在下达管理指令时，微信群会胜出。
- 补齐辅助性岗位的民主程序，且不要假定集团代表处的第25条豁免可延伸至外商独资企业。
- 提前规划退回路径。 退回仅限第12条的三种情形，且属于《劳动合同法》第42条保护情形的劳动者，在派遣期限届满前不得以客观情况重大变化或经济性裁员为由退回。
Sources
- 中国政府网 国务院公报 — 人力资源和社会保障部令第22号《劳务派遣暂行规定》全文
- 中国政府网 国务院公报 — 人力资源和社会保障部令第19号《劳务派遣行政许可实施办法》全文
- 人力资源社会保障部 — 法律、行政法规、国务院决定设定的行政许可事项清单（人社部门），载”劳务派遣经营许可”
- 人力资源社会保障部 — 对十二届全国人大三次会议第4002号建议的答复（人社建字〔2015〕102号）
- 央广网 — 遭遇隐蔽用工别慌！法官教你戳破甩锅套路（北京市房山区人民法院涉隐蔽用工类劳动争议典型案例通报，2026年7月31日）
- 新华网 — 同工同酬、缴纳社保……《山西省劳务派遣用工指引》印发（2026年4月22日）