Japan has required equal pay for dispatched workers since 2020. What changes on October 1, 2026 isn’t the underlying rule, it’s how hard that rule is enforced, and who has to actively tell the worker it exists. A revised government guideline sharpens exactly which allowances and bonuses count, and a new disclosure duty means a dispatched worker no longer has to know to ask about a pay gap — the agency now has to raise it first.
1. The baseline that’s already law
Since 2020, a dispatching agency must handle a dispatched worker’s pay under one of two methods.
Method one: match the host company. Under this approach, every element of pay base salary, bonuses, everything is measured against what the host company pays its own comparable employees:
派遣元事業主は、その雇用する派遣労働者の基本給、賞与その他の待遇のそれぞれについて、当該待遇に対応する派遣先に雇用される通常の労働者の待遇との間において、当該派遣労働者及び通常の労働者の職務の内容、当該職務の内容及び配置の変更の範囲その他の事情のうち、当該待遇の性質及び当該待遇を行う目的に照らして適切と認められるものを考慮して、不合理と認められる相違を設けてはならない。
— 労働者派遣法第30条の3第1項
A dispatching employer must not create an unreasonable disparity between each element of a dispatched worker’s treatment — base salary, bonuses, and other treatment — and the corresponding treatment of a comparable regular employee of the host company, taking into account the content of duties, the scope of any change in duties or placement, and other circumstances relevant to the nature and purpose of that treatment.
Method two: a labor-management agreement. The alternative — what most staffing agencies actually use, since it doesn’t require resetting pay every time a worker moves to a new host company — is a written agreement with the agency’s own labor union or worker representative, setting wages at or above the general market rate for that type of work:
派遣労働者が従事する業務と同種の業務に従事する一般の労働者の平均的な賃金の額として厚生労働省令で定めるものと同等以上の賃金の額となるものであること。
— 同法第30条の4第1項第2号イ
[The agreement must set wages such that they] equal or exceed the average wage amount, as specified by ministry ordinance, for general workers engaged in the same type of work performed by the dispatched worker.
None of this is new. It’s the framework that’s been in force for six years. What’s changing is what counts as compliance with it, and who has to tell the worker their rights exist.
2. What changes in the guideline itself
The government’s equal-pay guideline — the document that spells out, with concrete examples, what counts as an unreasonable pay gap — was revised April 28, 2026, effective October 1, 2026:
短時間・有期雇用労働者及び派遣労働者に対する不合理な待遇の禁止等に関する指針
— 平成30年厚生労働省告示第430号（令和8年10月1日改正適用）
Guideline Concerning the Prohibition of Unreasonable Treatment of Part-Time, Fixed-Term, and Dispatched Workers — MHLW Notification No. 430 of 2018, as revised, effective October 1, 2026.
The revision adds new, explicit “problem” and “not a problem” examples covering bonuses, retirement allowances, family allowances, housing allowances, and sick and seasonal leave — categories that were previously argued over case by case. The added detail largely codifies the reasoning from two Supreme Court rulings on fixed-term worker pay parity — the Japan Post case and the Hamakyorex case — turning judicial reasoning into a checklist agencies and host companies can actually apply before a dispute happens, not after.
3. The disclosure duty flips from reactive to proactive
Here’s the part that actually changes behavior. Under current law, a dispatched worker can ask their agency to explain any pay gap with the comparable host-company employee:
派遣元事業主は、その雇用する派遣労働者から求めがあつたときは、当該派遣労働者に対し、当該派遣労働者と第26条第8項に規定する比較対象労働者との間の待遇の相違の内容及び理由並びに第30条の3から第30条の6までの規定により措置を講ずべきこととされている事項に関する決定をするに当たつて考慮した事項を説明しなければならない。
— 同法第31条の2第4項
Upon request from a dispatched worker it employs, a dispatching employer must explain to that worker the content of and reasons for any difference in treatment between the worker and the comparable employee defined under Article 26, Paragraph 8, along with the matters considered in the decisions required under Articles 30-3 through 30-6.
And retaliation for asking is separately prohibited:
派遣元事業主は、派遣労働者が前項の求めをしたことを理由として、当該派遣労働者に対して解雇その他不利益な取扱いをしてはならない。
— 同条第5項
A dispatching employer must not dismiss or otherwise disadvantage a dispatched worker on the grounds that the worker made the request described in the preceding paragraph.
This right has existed since 2020. In practice, it’s rarely used, because it depends on a worker knowing it exists and choosing to raise it — often with the same agency that controls their next assignment. The October 2026 change adds a new requirement to the written documents an agency is already required to hand over at hiring and at every new placement: those documents must now proactively state that the right to request this explanation exists at all. The underlying explanation duty in Paragraph 4 hasn’t changed. What’s changed is that the worker no longer has to already know to ask — the agency has to put it in front of them first.
4. Host companies have their own duty here — not just the agency
An overseas company using a licensed dispatch structure in Japan is not a bystander to any of this. The host company has an affirmative cooperation duty of its own:
派遣先は、第30条の2、第30条の3、第30条の4第1項及び第31条の2第4項の規定による措置が適切に講じられるようにするため、派遣元事業主の求めに応じ、当該派遣先に雇用される労働者に関する情報、当該派遣労働者の業務の遂行の状況その他の情報であつて当該措置に必要なものを提供する等必要な協力をするように配慮しなければならない。
— 同法第40条第5項
To ensure the measures required under Articles 30-2, 30-3, 30-4 Paragraph 1, and 31-2 Paragraph 4 are properly implemented, a host company must, upon request from the dispatching employer, provide information concerning its own employees, the dispatched worker’s job performance, and other information necessary for those measures, and otherwise cooperate as needed.
In plain terms: if the dispatching agency needs comparator wage and treatment data from the host company to answer a worker’s question honestly, the host company is expected to hand it over. A host company that stonewalls this request doesn’t just create friction — it puts the agency in a position where it may not be able to comply with Paragraph 4 at all.
What this means for an overseas client
This entire framework — the choice of pay method, the guideline compliance, the disclosure paperwork, the anti-retaliation duty — applies specifically where the arrangement is structured as licensed worker dispatch (派遣), not secondment or outsourcing. Under a licensed dispatch structure, the dispatching agency carries the day-to-day compliance burden, but the host company’s own cooperation duty under Article 40, Paragraph 5 means it can still be asked, directly, to produce internal wage data on short notice. That’s worth knowing before, not after, the request arrives.
For a client working through an agency that already tracks this — updated guideline examples, the new disclosure paperwork, and a documented history of responding to host-company data requests without drama — this is a compliance detail that gets absorbed rather than discovered. For a client who doesn’t know which pay method their agency uses in the first place, October 2026 is a reasonable moment to ask.
This article draws on the text of the Worker Dispatch Act (労働者派遣事業の適正な運営の確保及び派遣労働者の保護等に関する法律) and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare’s equal-pay guideline. It is provided for general informational purposes, is not legal advice, and is not directed at any specific company or arrangement. Companies using dispatch structures in Japan should consult qualified Japanese employment counsel regarding their specific facts.