In Colombia, the core rules on labour intermediation and outsourcing have not fundamentally changed, but the way they are being applied has.

Through Ministry of Labour inspections, recent labour reform momentum and increasingly consistent judicial decisions, Colombia is moving towards a stricter substance-over-form approach. Structures that appear compliant on paper are being tested against how work is actually performed.

For staffing agencies, Employers of Record (EORs) and multinational workforce providers, this matters because the question is no longer whether the model is correctly documented, but whether it reflects how work is carried out day to day.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IS STRICT

Colombian law draws a clear line between:

- authorised temporary labour supply, which can only be carried out by licensed Empresas de Servicios Temporales in limited scenarios; and

- service provision, where a contractor delivers a genuinely independent, specialised service.

Joint liability may also arise where outsourced activities relate to the beneficiary's core or ordinary business activities. None of this is new. What has changed is how consistently authorities are testing whether companies are operating within these boundaries.

THE PRACTICAL RISK: DRIFT, NOT DESIGN

Most cases of exposure do not come from deliberately aggressive structures. They develop over time through small operational decisions, including:

- assigning internal managers to supervise outsourced workers;

- providing company tools, systems and email domains;

- including external workers in internal performance cycles; and

- expanding the scope of services beyond what was originally contracted.

Individually, these steps may seem operationally efficient. Taken together, they blur the line between service provision and labour supply.

What matters is who exercises subordination in practice, not who signs the employment contract.

WHAT IS DIFFERENT NOW

The Ministry of Labour is placing greater emphasis on how work is organised in practice, rather than how it is described contractually.

A recent example is a 2025 ruling of the Tribunal Administrativo de Cundinamarca, which upheld a Ministry of Labour sanction against a cooperative supplying staff to clinics and hospitals. On paper, the workers were cooperative associates. In practice, they performed permanent core functions under the direct orders and supervision of the hospitals. The Tribunal found the cooperative was acting as a labour intermediary rather than an autonomous service provider, and confirmed the sanction. This decision echoes recent rulings from the Supreme Court's labour chamber, where outsourced workers were recognised as direct employees of the end client, leaving the client liable for unpaid salary and social security gaps plus severance.

Recent inspection patterns and case law focus on day-to-day supervision and control, integration of workers into the client's organisation, alignment between contractual scope and actual tasks performed, and whether the contractor has real operational independence.

Compliance is being tested through behaviour as well as documentation.

ENFORCEMENT IS NOT JUST ADMINISTRATIVE

The risk is not limited to Ministry fines. Colombian labour courts have a long-standing tendency to prioritise factual subordination over contractual structure.

Where a worker brings a claim, judges will look at who gave instructions, who controlled working time and deliverables, and who integrated the worker into the organisation. If the answer points to the end client, courts may recognise a direct employment relationship. That can trigger back pay, social security liabilities and broader employment rights exposure.

WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE FOR YOUR BUSINESS

The practical question for any company using these models in Colombia is whether the day-to-day reality would survive an inspection. End clients should look hard at whether outsourced roles have crept into core business activities, whether their own managers are directing external workers, and whether long-running engagements have expanded well beyond their original scope. Staffing providers and EORs face the mirror image: can they show real operational control over their workforce, with service boundaries that are documented and visible in practice, not just on paper?

‍