CASE UPDATE

Employment status of volunteers

On 9 May 2024, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) held that a volunteer for the Coastguard Rescue Service was deemed to be a ‘worker’ when he performed certain activities that entitled him to remuneration.

Case summary

The Claimant, Mr Groom, was a volunteer for the Coastguard Rescue Service. Mr Groom was subject to a disciplinary hearing and was not allowed to be accompanied by a trade union representative.

Mr Groom would only have had those rights if he was a “Limb (b) worker” for the purposes of s.13(1)(a) Employment Relations Act 1999 and s.230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996. The definition of “worker” is “an individual who has entered into or works under…

  • a contract of employment, or
  • any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual”.

Therefore, the sole issue to be determined was whether Mr Groom was a “Limb (b) worker”, so as to engage the right to be accompanied at the disciplinary hearing.

On 30 March 2022, the Employment Tribunal held that the agreement between the parties (in the form of a written Volunteer Handbook) was a “genuinely voluntary one” and therefore Mr Groom was not a worker. The Tribunal dismissed the claim.

On appeal, the EAT overturned the decision and held that the Claimant was a worker.

Under the Volunteer Handbook, Coastguard Rescue Officers were entitled (but not obliged) to claim “remuneration for time, travel and expenses associated with specific activities undertaken whilst on authorised duty…”.

As such, the EAT held that a contract arose for the performance of services by Mr Groom when he attended an activity in respect of which he was entitled to remuneration. It was irrelevant that the Claimant had to submit a claim for payment and that many volunteers did not do so in practice.

The EAT did not reach a conclusion on worker status in relation to attendance at non-remunerated activities. This question therefore remains open.

“Although use of the word volunteer may suggest an absence of intention to create legal relations, “volunteer” is not a term of art, the legal status of all volunteers is not necessarily the same. Ultimately, whether or not there is a contract is determined from the documents as a whole.” (para. 111 of the judgment)

Key takeaways

As is often the case with employment status cases, much will turn on the specific facts of the case. However, this decision will have important implications for entities that seek to engage volunteers and remunerate them for activities performed, even if remuneration is expressed to be in respect of expenses only.

In this instance, the description of the volunteer’s relationship with the employer in the Volunteer Handbook as a “voluntary two-way commitment where no contract of employment exists” was not enough to expressly negate the existence of any contract. Rather, Mr Groom’s performance of certain activities that entitled him to remuneration; and the requirement for minimum levels of attendance at training and incidents, gave rise to a contract for the performance of services.

Entities should also be aware of the new Labour Government’s proposal to have a single status of “worker” (see our previous update here for further details).