The recent case of Groom v Maritime & Coastguard Agency will be of particular interest to organisations that offer remuneration to their volunteers over and above the payment of expenses. Overturning the decision of the Employment Tribunal, the EAT has ruled that a volunteer had worker status whilst carrying out activities for which he was entitled to claim remuneration.
Mr Groom was a volunteer Coastal Rescue Officer in the Coastguard Rescue Service (CRS), which engages around 3,500 volunteers and 108 employed staff. He brought a claim against the CRS for its refusal to allow him to be accompanied by a trade union representative at a disciplinary hearing. Since this would only be permitted if Mr Groom was a worker under the Employment Rights Act 1996, a preliminary hearing was held to determine his employment status.
The Employment Tribunal considered whether there was a worker contract between Mr Groom and the CRS. Key relevant factors included the following:
- The CRS 'Volunteer Handbook' repeatedly referred to Coastal Rescue Officers as volunteers who had no mutuality of obligation and no employment relationship with the CRS.
- Volunteers had to attend regular training, follow CRS rules, and comply with a code of conduct. They also had to maintain a reasonable level of attendance at incidents.
- Volunteers could choose to make claims for travel and expenses as well as for hourly-rate remuneration in relation to certain categories of authorised activities. In practice, many volunteers did not make claims.
- When payments were made, volunteers received an itemised payslip, a P60 at the end of the tax year, and a P45 on leaving the CRS.
- An HMRC investigation concluded that volunteer Coastal Rescue Officers were not workers.
The Tribunal held that there was no contract in existence between Mr Groom and the CRS. In the Tribunal’s view, taken together, three main factors pointed to a genuinely voluntary relationship: the Handbook was a voluntary agreement; there was no automatic remuneration for any activity; and many volunteers did not make a claim.
On appeal, the EAT held that the Tribunal’s reasoning and analysis of the documentation were wrong in law. There was a clear right to remuneration for most of the activities undertaken by Mr Groom, and it was irrelevant that he had to submit a claim for this payment. It was also irrelevant that many volunteers did not claim any payment. The EAT concluded that a worker contract came into existence when Mr Groom provided services at an activity for which he was entitled to remuneration. Whether he was a worker while he was undertaking unremunerated activities was expressly left open by the EAT.
This decision highlights that the legal status of any volunteer will depend on an analysis of the particular relationship under which their services are provided and that tribunals will look beyond labels used in documentation that may not reflect the reality of their working relationship. Volunteer arrangements and agreements should be reviewed regularly to ensure they are still relevant and accurate. It is important to link payments for expenses directly to sums that have actually been incurred by the volunteer. The structure and basis for any other payments to volunteers must be carefully considered and documented in order to avoid the risk of a finding of worker status. It is also important to note that employment tribunals are not bound by an HMRC determination that a volunteer is not a worker.
share on
