Employment & Pensions Blog: Volunteer found to be a Worker

In the recent case of Mr Martin Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency [2024], the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) considered the employment status of a Volunteer. 

Background 

Mr Groom was a “volunteer” Coastal Rescue Officer, and then a Station Officer for the Coastal Rescue Service (the CRS) for around 35 years. He operated both roles under the terms of a “Volunteer Handbook” and “Code of Conduct” which were referred to in subsequent proceedings as the “Volunteer Agreement”. This Volunteer Agreement set out the required activities Mr Groom had to undertake, some of which attracted remuneration, and others which did not. It described the relationship as “entirely voluntary” where “no contract” existed. Whilst it emphasised the lack of mutuality of obligations, it also specified certain levels of incident attendance and training that Mr Groom needed to maintain. The Voluntary Agreement also allowed Mr Groom to submit claims for payment to cover certain costs, but also compensate him for the disruption to his personal time in light of unsocial call out hours. These payments included payment for his time, travel and expenses. If Mr Groom was entitled to remuneration and claimed for it, he would receive a payslip. P60s were also issued at the end of every tax year. 

In May 2020 the CRS invited Mr Groom to a disciplinary hearing, where he was not permitted to be accompanied by a trade union or workplace colleague, as he was not a “worker”. His membership with the CRS was then terminated with immediate effect and his request to appeal the outcome was rejected. In September 2020, he received a P45 as confirmation of his termination. 

Mr Groom brought a claim to the Employment Tribunal (ET) for the CRS’s failure to afford him the right to be accompanied at the disciplinary hearing. This is a statutory right afforded to workers and employees. 

ET Judgment 

In order to determine this claim the ET had to consider whether Mr Groom was a “worker”. This required the careful examination of the Voluntary Agreement and how that agreement was applied in practice. The ET concluded that there was no contract between Mr Groom and the CRS. This was held on the basis that: 

• Copious references to the agreement being “voluntary” were contained in the Volunteer Agreement;
• There was no “automatic” right to remuneration and for many activities no remuneration was payable at all;
• Not many volunteers claimed remuneration;
• There was no significant degree of control; and
• A HMRC investigation previously concluded that the volunteers were not workers for tax purposes. 

Mr Groom appealed to the EAT claiming that the ET had erred in their decision that there was no contractual relationship between himself and the CRS. 

EAT Judgment 

The EAT found that the ET had erred in holding that there was no contractual relationship and that the ET had interpreted the ‘Volunteer Agreement’ incorrectly. The EAT stated that the ET had focused too heavily on the fact that there was no “automatic” right to remuneration and that other volunteers never claimed for such payments. The EAT found that the payment of remuneration was pivotal to the question of whether or not a contract was in place. The EAT held that the fact that there was no automatic right to remuneration was not in itself determinative of employment status, nor was the fact that many volunteers did not claim for such payments. That, coupled with the fact that remuneration was provided to “compensate” volunteers for the disruption to their personal time led the EAT to conclude that a contract was indeed in place. 

The EAT therefore concluded that “the only proper construction of the [Volunteer Agreement] is that a contract [came] into existence when a [volunteer attended] an activity in respect of which there [was] a right to remuneration”. The EAT therefore concluded that a contract was in place when Mr Groom undertook work for which remuneration was available and that during those activities he was a worker.

Comment

This Judgment is a good reminder to employers that the “label” attached to a volunteer is not determinative of the employment relationship that exists between the employer and the volunteer. Tribunals will carefully explore and scrutinise the nature of the relationship in practice before reaching a conclusion on a volunteer’s employment status. Getting this wrong can have serious ramifications for employers both financially and reputationally. It is also worth noting that volunteers can be found to be workers in respect of certain activities they undertake for employers and not others. Central to this case was the payment of remuneration and therefore a key reminder to employers engaging volunteers is to carefully consider any reference to payments within agreements given to volunteers. 

If you require any further assistance or support, please contact a member of the Employment Team.