The Centrality of Control in Distinguishing Employees from Contractors Under Jordanian Law: Where is the Line Drawn?

10 min 20 sec February 18, 2026 (Edited) الترجمة العربية

Written by

Loai Albeeshawi

Senior Associate

l.albeeshawi@tamimi.com

Raneem Asad

Senior Associate

r.asad@tamimi.com View LinkedIn Profile

A doctrinal line in Jordanian law locates the boundary between employment and contracting in the element of control, which the jurisprudence terms “taba‘iyya” (subordination). While both the employment contract and a contract for works contemplate the performance of work for remuneration, the legal character of the relationship turns on whether the putative worker performs under the employer’s “taba‘iyya”. Although the doctrine establishes the boundary, where to draw the line remains uncertain, creating difficulties for both corporations and workers evaluating pertinent statutory protections, economic risks, and regulatory burdens. With the proliferation of remote work and the international outsourcing of labour, achieving coherence in the doctrine of control become increasingly salient.

In this article, we build upon our recent experiences litigating the matter in Jordanian courts to shed light upon the doctrine and its applications through, firstly, setting out the statutory framework, secondly, analysing the judicial articulation of subordination, and, third, addressing practical implications for structuring cross-border and remote engagements.

I. Statutory Framework

At the outset, the Jordanian Civil Code characterizes the employment contract as one under which a person undertakes to perform work for the benefit of another “under his supervision or management” in return for a wage. The Civil Code expressly specifies that if the worker is “not restricted from working for someone other than the employer” or “if no specific time has been fixed for the performance of the work,” then it is not an employment relationship.
The Labour Law further defines an employee as every person “who performs a job for wages and is subordinate to the employer and at his service.” Article 2 of the Labour Law further defines the employment contract as a(n) “oral or written, explicit or implicit, agreement under which the worker undertakes to work for the employer under his supervision and management in return for a wage.”
Separately, the Civil Code defines a “muqawala” (contract for works) as an agreement by which one party undertakes to make something or perform work in return for consideration from the other.
This textual juxtaposition thus delineates the statutory contours of two distinct nominate contracts and poses the interpretive question that the jurisprudence must resolve: how, in practice, the boundary between conducting work as a putative employee, who benefits from the Labour Law’s protections, or independent contractor is to be drawn.

II. Case Law and Doctrine: Control at the Courts

The Doctrinal Test: Subordination as the Decisive Criterion

At the outset, the Jordanian courts have consistently held that the factual reality overrides contractual nomenclature in the classification of the relationship. Accordingly, the courts rely upon documentary and testimonial evidence in order to examine whether the practical application of a contract – irrespective of its label – has a sufficient degree of control to qualify it as an employment contract.

While the Civil Code prescribes distinguishing factors, such as whether a worker is time-bound or is restricted from working for third parties, the Jordanian courts have recognized that operational realities of work do not always lend to a clear distinction on these bases. Rather, the cautioning that confusion often arises because both employment and muqawala entail performance of work for remuneration, the courts have established that the distinction turns on the extent and degree of subordination.

In assessing whether a putative worker is an employee or independent contractor, the courts have affirmed the centrality of control over performance, not result, as the decisive factor that characterizes the legal relationship. In muqawala, the recipient’s oversight concerns delivery of the agreed ‘result’, while in employment, the employer dictates the method of ‘performance’ extending beyond oversight over completion to comprehensive control over how work is performed.

In this way, the court jurisprudence has established a consistent and fact-based test that the subordination required for an employment relationship must extend to the ‘how’ and not merely the ‘what’ of performance, and the courts will look to the practical reality of the relationship in applying this threshold.

Indicative Factors from Leading Cases

The jurisprudence of the courts has predominantly indicated if the putative employer directs the manner of performance and integrates the worker into its managerial structure, employment is the likely characterisation. However, if the provider retains autonomy in execution and the recipient’s oversight is confined to verifying results against agreed specifications, the relationship is probably a muqawala.

In making this assessment, the following factors have been commonly considered by the courts:

• Supervision of method versus result: whether the putative employer dictates the manner, sequence, tools, and methods of work, as opposed to verifying outputs.
• Exclusivity: whether the worker may serve other clients concurrently or is restricted from doing so.
• Fixed time: whether there are fixed hours, attendance requirements, or prescribed availability windows.
• Discretion over resources: whether the worker can engage people or resources at his/her own account and bear associated costs.
• Remuneration structure: whether compensation is time-based and continuous (typical of employment) or project/result-based with the worker bearing operational risk (typical of muqawala).
• Organisational integration: the extent to which the worker is embedded in the recipient’s managerial hierarchy and bound by its day-to-day directives.

These indicia, while not determinative, are often assessed by Jordanian courts to operationalise the subordination test in practice.

Illustrative Case Law: How Courts Apply the Test

While the legal test and its underpinning indicative factors have been framed by the courts, application has become increasingly nuanced in practice. Case law illustrates how the courts pivot on operational realities when weighing the indicia of control against features of independence.

For example, in its Decision No. (2795/2000), the Court of Cassation found that the claimant was not bound to the defendant by a relationship of subordination as “he performed maintenance of the pool belonging to the defendant at times he deemed fit; he had no fixed working hours; the defendant did not supervise or monitor his work; and he worked for other persons in the same trade.” Here, the court did not rely on testimonial evidence from the parties to reach this finding, but rather on documentary evidence that revealed the surrounding circumstances of the work.

In similar vein, in its Decision No. (2590/1999), the Court of Cassation determined, on the basis of the evidence presented to it, that the putative employee did not work under the supervision and consistent monitoring of the putative employer. The evidence established that the worker was not bound to fixed hours, that he was assigned tasks on varied bases for different costs, that he employed personnel at his own expense to complete tasks, and that he had the freedom to perform work for third parties. Accordingly, the absence of managerial control over the manner of performance coupled with project-based renumeration led to a finding that the worker was not an employee.

Courts have also been faced with ‘supervision’ clauses in contacts, which dictate delivery schedules, geographical scope, deliverable specifications, or quality assurance mechanisms. Courts have inquired as to the operational reality in order to distinguish whether the clauses and their application govern the result or, instead, impose prescriptive control over methods and execution that embody subordination.

For example, in its Decision No. (1276/2020), the Court of Cassation recognized that there is a significant degree of “overlap in the elements” of work as an employee or contractor, explaining that:

“Despite the various criteria that have been proposed to distinguish between the two, the decisive and principal criterion remains the element of subordination: if the worker operates under the employer’s supervision and direction, the contractor operates in freedom and independence and away from such supervision and direction.  Care and precision must be exercised in using the element of subordination to distinguish between the two contracts, as the concept of subordination has evolved to encompass organisational subordination even where technical subordination is absent.” (Emphasis added.)

Looking beyond the terms of the contract, the court found that the evidence presented and heard in the case was examined to find that there was not a sufficient degree of subordination in the parties’ relationship. This is because, despite the contract containing clauses regarding adherence to distribution times, defining the geographic scope of distribution, and other comprehensive specifications, these elements were necessary to obtain the result that was intended. They were not, according to the court, applied as a method to control the way that the worker performed the distribution and, thus, did not cross the requisite doctrinal threshold.

This illustrates the margin of judicial discretion when weighing the facts and the will of the parties to ascertain the nature of the legal relationship, particularly in light of the concept of organisational subordination.

Finally, the courts have articulated a functional test for the attenuation of subordination. In its Decisions No. 1215/2008 and 1039/2012, the courts found that where oversight and direction diminish to the point that the putative employer lacks sufficient authority to impose meaningful control, subordination collapses and with it the employment characterisation.

The courts have cited to different evidentiary factors to reach this finding, which include lessened episodic reporting, the absence of performance protocols, and the allocation of greater liberty for the worker to structure work and assume operational risks.

This application by the courts is a reminder that the test of subordination can evolve and attenuate based on operational realities.

III. Practical and Forward-Looking Implications

Remote work implications

This doctrine assumes particular importance in the remote-work setting. As the Jordanian legal framework is underdeveloped in relation to remote work, there can be an increased ambiguity when construing workers under such arrangements as employees or contractors.

It is thus important for corporations and workers alike to identify, document, and consistently implement the boundaries of control they intend to exercise, ensuring that remote arrangements do not inadvertently replicate the hallmarks of subordination. While remote arrangements often require output milestones, protocols, and communication methods, these are unlikely to amount to subordination without extensive direction over how tasks are executed. Conversely, if the recipient prescribes the worker’s daily methods, tools, schedule, availability windows, and sequencing of tasks, the subordination element may be satisfied even in the absence of physical co-location.

In this regard, multinational practitioners should account for the control doctrine when structuring Jordan-facing engagements. Drafting should clarify the provider’s discretion over methods and personnel, the permissibility of concurrent work, and whether performance is defined by deliverables rather than procedures. Where the intent is a muqawala, avoiding exclusivity obligations, fixed attendance, and prescriptive process control reduces re-characterisation risk. Conversely, where the business reality requires close direction over daily work, exclusivity, and integration into the recipient’s operations, the structure ought to align with and account for the protections provided under the Labour Law.

Organisational subordination

In this context, the distinction between technical and organisational subordination is a helpful tool. Technical subordination concerns the employer’s control over the methods and techniques of the work.  Organisational subordination concerns the worker’s integration into the recipient’s managerial and administrative structures, including adherence to internal policies, reporting lines, and strategic directives.  As the Jordanian court jurisprudence shows, organisational integration can indicate the capacity to direct performance for the purpose of finding an employment relationship. Accordingly, corporations should be careful in drawing the lines between generalised policy compliance and more comprehensive integration that could be construed as organisational subordination.

Practice over form

In litigation, misclassification analysis is rooted in evidence, not contractual formality. Even where a contract is styled as a muqawala, courts will pierce to the substance if, in practice, the putative employer directs how work is done, imposes attendance and working-time controls, prohibits outside work, and exercises ongoing, detailed supervision. The more the facts demonstrate day-to-day direction of tasks, the stronger the case for employment and the application of the Labour Law.

IV. Concluding Remarks

Pulling the threads together, Jordanian law is doctrinally clear that the decisive line between employee and contractor is the presence or absence of subordination: control over the how, not merely the what. However, there is increasing ambiguity as to where the line is drawn, as case law seeks to draw it through a fact-intensive lens that assesses operational reality. As the economy digitizes and work detaches from place, the practical indicators of control will evolve, but the legal doctrine remains. It is therefore ever more important for organisations and workers alike to align such practical indicators with an awareness of the threshold of control to ensure that the legal characterisation under Jordanian law aligns with the parties’ commercial intentions and operational practices.