If the sponsor (car owner) operates the vehicle under the name of the affiliated logistics company, and the driver hired by the sponsor is injured at work, who should bear the main responsibility for the employment of the driver? The Provincial High People's Court heard such a labor lawsuit confirming the employment relationship clarified that the purpose of Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases of Work-related Injury Insurance is to more effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of employees, rather than to change the substantive requirements for determining the existence of labor relations, and cannot be used as a legal basis for the reverse presumption that an employee and the affiliated enterprise have an employment relationship.

Basic facts of the case

灤縣某物流公司於2013年9月25日成立，經營範圍為普通貨運、普通貨物裝卸、倉儲服務；九座以上商用車、卸貨車、農機車銷售。

2015年9月1日，第三人張某的父親張某某與灤縣某物流公司簽訂車輛租賃協定，張某某租賃灤縣某物流公司的21台車輛，包括案涉車輛。合同約定：“1.租賃方法為：自合同簽訂之日起，由張某某承擔該21輛車日後需交由龐大汽貿的全部月租；2.雙方約定：月租交清后，經見證人同意，張某某對租賃物擁有100%的股權，有權對租賃物進行處置。在未交清月租之前，租賃物擁有權歸灤縣某物流公司方所有；3.權利與義務：自合同簽訂之日起，張某某負責對車輛進行維修、保養、加氣，並交納月租及保險，在租賃物期間所有的債權、債務、事故及責任全部由張某某負責，灤縣某物流公司不承擔任何責任。灤縣某物流公司負責為張某某提供車輛出車前的所有相關手續。”

王某於2016年11月經人介紹認識了第三人張某，並由張某安排其成為案涉車輛的司機，從事運輸工作，並由第三人張某發放勞動報酬並負責對其日常工作進行管理。王某在事故發生前，並不知道灤縣某物流公司，第三人張某也不是灤縣某物流公司的工作人員。2016年12月2日3時，王某駕駛案涉車輛與他人相撞，造成王某受傷。

Wang applied for labor arbitration, requesting confirmation of the existence of an employment relationship with a logistics company in Luanxian County. The Luanxian Labor and Personnel Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Commission rendered the Luan Lao Ren Zhong Case [147] No. 0 Arbitration Award, holding that a logistics company in Luanxian County was an employer established in accordance with the law, and the company leased vehicles to a natural person, Zhang, who engaged in business activities in the name of a logistics company in Luanxian County. Wang was usually managed by Zhang and engaged in paid labor arranged by him, so it should be determined that he was a worker recruited by Zhang, that a logistics company in Luan County should bear the main responsibility of employment in accordance with the law, and that a de facto labor relationship between Wang and a logistics company in Luan County was established at the time of his injury. The ruling confirmed the existence of an employment relationship between Wang and a logistics company in Luanxian County.

Heard by the courts

A logistics company in Luanxian County was dissatisfied with the arbitral award and filed a lawsuit with the people's court. A logistics company in Luanxian County claimed that it had a contractual relationship with a third party, Zhang, and that the vehicle was registered in its name but the actual consumer was a third party, Zhang. The third party, Zhang, hired Wang in the course of operation, and Wang was managed by the third party, Zhang, and paid labor remuneration, etc., and there was no relationship between a logistics company in Luan County and Wang. The court was requested to confirm that there was no de facto labor relationship between a logistics company in Luanxian County and Wang in accordance with the law.

Wang argued that the third party, Zhang, leased a vehicle of a logistics company in Luanxian County and engaged in road transportation in the name of the company, and the company should bear the main responsibility for the employment of the injury suffered by Wang, who was recruited by Zhang, and the existence of an employment relationship between the two parties should be judged.

灤縣人民法院2018年4月11日作出（2018）冀0223民初862號民事判決：灤縣某物流公司與王某之間事實勞動關係不成立。宣判后，王某不服提起上訴。唐山市中級人民法院於2018年8月31日作出（2018）冀02民終5614號民事判決：一、撤銷河北省灤縣人民法院（2018）冀0223民初862號民事判決；二、王某與灤縣某物流公司存在事實勞動關係。

灤縣某物流公司不服，申請再審。河北省高級人民法院裁定提審本案，並於2020年3月2日作出（2019）冀民再191號民事判決：一、撤銷河北省唐山市中級人民法院（2018）冀02民終5614號民事判決；二、維持河北省灤縣人民法院（2018）冀0223民初862號民事判決。

Grounds for the Trial

The effective judgment of the court held that in this case, Wang was introduced by someone to be arranged by Zhang to work in driving a vehicle, and his daily work was managed by Zhang and received remuneration from Zhang. Until the accident, Wang did not know that there was a logistics company in Luan County. Zhang is not an employee of a logistics company in Luan County, and Zhang's father, Zhang, has signed a lease contract with a logistics company in Luan County, and Zhang's business activities are not under the control of a logistics company in Luan County. Although Zhang's procedures for arranging for Wang to drive the vehicle were in the name of a logistics company in Luanxian County, the company only collected leasing fees from Zhang, and Zhang's benefits from using the vehicle had nothing to do with a logistics company in Luanxian County. Therefore, there is no constitutive element of a de facto labor relationship between a logistics company in Luan County and Wang. This case is also in line with the spirit of the Reply of the Supreme People's Court on Whether a de facto employment relationship has formed between the driver employed by the actual owner of the vehicle and the affiliated entity. Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Work-related Injury Insurance stipulates that: "If an individual is affiliated with another unit for external business, and the personnel employed by it are injured or injured due to work-related injuries, the affiliated unit shall be the unit that bears the liability for work-related injury insurance." This article establishes the issue of the liability of work-related injury insurance, but does not confirm the existence of an employment relationship between the two parties. Based on this clause, the second-instance trial confirmed that there was an error in the de facto labor relationship between Wang and a logistics company in Luanxian County, which should be corrected.

Reporter Zhou Bin