Court of Appeal decision highlights worker status risk for charities using volunteers

Why employment status matters for charities

UK employment law recognises three main categories of status: employees, workers and the genuinely self-employed. Status matters because statutory rights differ. Employees benefit from the full range of employment protections, while workers are entitled to a more limited but still significant set of rights, including paid annual leave, rest breaks, the national minimum wage, protection from unlawful deductions and certain procedural rights.

The statutory definition of a worker is deliberately wide. In broad terms, a worker is an individual who performs work or services personally under a contract, whether written or implied, for another party who is not their client or customer.

Volunteers usually fall outside this framework because genuine volunteering arrangements typically involve no contract. Where services are provided freely, with no entitlement to payment beyond reimbursement of genuine expenses, worker status will not arise. However, as the Court of Appeal confirmed in Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Groom, labels are not decisive where the reality of the relationship points to an enforceable right to payment.

What were the facts of the case?

Mr Groom volunteered as a Coastguard Rescue Officer with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) for many years. After his role was terminated in 2020, he sought to rely on the statutory right to be accompanied at a disciplinary appeal meeting, a right which applies to both employees and workers.

Although the role was described as voluntary, Coastguard Rescue Officers were entitled to claim payment for certain authorised activities, including emergency call-outs and some training. Payments were calculated by reference to time spent, paid at an hourly rate not less than the national minimum wage, processed through payroll and subject to tax and national insurance. While volunteers were not required to claim payment, and some chose not to do so, an entitlement existed where qualifying activities were undertaken.

The employment tribunal rejected Mr Groom’s claim, relying on the voluntary nature of the role and the absence of any obligation to accept work. The Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned that decision, finding that a contract arose each time Mr Groom attended a remunerated activity. The MCA appealed.

Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It emphasised that it was not deciding whether Mr Groom was an employee, nor whether there was an overarching contract between call-outs. The sole question was whether, on each occasion he attended an activity that entitled him to claim payment, he was a worker.

Considering the governing documents together, the court concluded that they reflected the reality of the relationship. While Coastguard Rescue Officers were free to decide whether to respond to call-outs, once they did attend they were required to comply with reasonable instructions and were entitled to claim hourly remuneration. That amounted to a classic wage/work bargain.

The court rejected the argument that worker status was prevented by the absence of any obligation to accept work or by gaps between engagements. Earlier volunteer cases were distinguished on the basis that they involved individuals who were unpaid other than for expenses.

Why this is relevant for charities

Many charities make payments to volunteers to promote inclusivity or remove barriers to participation. This decision confirms that the nature of those payments matters more than the label attached to the role.

Creating the right to remuneration for time spent volunteering presents a clear worker status risk. Even payments framed as compensation for loss of earnings may be problematic if they are linked to time spent or disruption rather than genuine out-of-pocket costs. By contrast, reimbursement of genuine expenses is generally low risk where it reflects actual costs incurred.

Learning points for charities and voluntary organisations

This decision reinforces that describing someone as a “volunteer” is not decisive. Courts and tribunals will focus on whether the substance of the relationship involves a wage/work bargain.

Charities should review volunteer arrangements carefully, noting any arrangements 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 statutory rights with it. The absence of any obligation to accept work does not prevent worker status arising when work is actually performed.