IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v52y2023i3p721-750..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subordination Theory in Practice: An Empirical Analysis of Chinese Courts’ Approaches to Classifying Labour Relationships in Platform Cases

Author

Listed:
  • Qi Zheng
  • Jianning Su

Abstract

Determining the juridical nature of the work relationship is key to understanding the capacity of labour law to protect the rights and interests of gig workers. How to apply the traditional ‘subordination’ test and its constituent elements to platform work remains controversial in both theory and practice. In this article we examine the approaches of courts to this question using a sample of 71 Chinese judgments. We construct a binary probit model to conduct an empirical test of the degree of correlation between eight factors which serve to identify protected worker status, on the one hand, and courts’ rulings on the presence or absence of subordination, on the other. We find that, among the factors relevant to the subordination test, ‘control’ and ‘integration’ strongly predict a finding of worker status. We conclude that the subordination test is still being widely used to determine the status of gig workers in China, and that an approach to classification based on the ‘primacy of the facts’ of the case continues to be feasible in the context of platform work.

Suggested Citation

  • Qi Zheng & Jianning Su, 2023. "Subordination Theory in Practice: An Empirical Analysis of Chinese Courts’ Approaches to Classifying Labour Relationships in Platform Cases," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 52(3), pages 721-750.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:52:y:2023:i:3:p:721-750.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwad015
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:52:y:2023:i:3:p:721-750.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.