Court of Appeal confirms scope of worker status for paid volunteers

Background

In the case of Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Groom, the Court of Appeal considered whether a long-serving volunteer Coastguard Rescue Officer was a “worker” for the purposes of statutory employment rights.

Mr Groom had volunteered with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) for many years. Following the termination of his role in 2020, he sought to rely on the statutory right to be accompanied at a disciplinary appeal meeting. That right applies not only to employees but also to individuals who fall within the statutory definition of a worker.

At a preliminary hearing, the employment tribunal dismissed the claim. It concluded that Mr Groom was not a worker because there was no contractual obligation on him to provide work or services, placing weight on the voluntary nature of the relationship, the fact that payments had to be claimed rather than paid automatically, and earlier case law concerning unpaid volunteers.

Mr Groom appealed successfully to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which held that a contract arose each time he attended an activity for which remuneration was payable and that he was therefore a worker at those times. The MCA appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the EAT’s decision.

The court made clear that it was not deciding whether Mr Groom was an employee, nor whether there was an overarching or “umbrella” contract between call-outs. The sole question was whether, on each occasion when he attended an activity that entitled him to claim payment, he was a worker within the statutory definition.

Looking at the Volunteer Handbook, Code of Conduct and remuneration arrangements together, the court concluded that they reflected the reality of the working relationship. Although Coastguard Rescue Officers were free to decide whether to respond to particular call-outs, once they did attend they were required to comply with reasonable instructions and were entitled to claim hourly remuneration, paid via payslips and subject to tax. That arrangement amounted to a classic wage/work bargain.

The court rejected the argument that the absence of any obligation to accept work, or the ability to withdraw, prevented worker status. An individual can be a worker during periods when they are working even if there is no obligation to work at other times. Describing the relationship as voluntary was relevant but not determinative, particularly where the documentation conferred a clear and enforceable entitlement to remuneration.

Earlier volunteer cases were distinguished on the basis that they involved individuals who were unpaid other than for expenses. In contrast, the payments made to Coastguard Rescue Officers were properly characterised as remuneration for time and disruption, not merely reimbursement.

Learning points for employers

This decision reinforces that labels such as “volunteer” are not decisive when assessing employment status. Tribunals and courts focus on the actual substance of the relationship, particularly whether a wage/ work bargain exists.

Employers and organisations that rely on volunteers should review their arrangements carefully where volunteers are subject to significant control while on duty and have an entitlement to payment for their time. In those circumstances, worker status may arise during periods of work, bringing with it a range of statutory rights.

The judgment also confirms that the absence of any obligation to accept work, or gaps between engagements, does not prevent worker status arising when work is actually performed. This is particularly relevant for organisations operating on a call-out or casual engagement basis and should be factored into risk assessments, policy drafting and pay structures.

---

For more information or advice, please contact Eleanor Searle in our Employment team.